ICANN, a rave not a review, is a party that keeps on going. The ink is barely dry on Agreements. Dancing shoes are not yet unpacked before ICANN 51 celebrants were planning their next drop on ICANN's whirlwind, exhausting never ending circuit of Comments, before it is time to, exit stage left, wrestle the Internet away from the American people 's control.

Who are the "they"? One will never know that answer. The "Board" is the decider on what is publicly disseminated. Or not.

ICANN has had a presence on FLICKR since 2008 with a paltry few hits, considering. ICANN has a presence on Facebook with equally as few views. Interesting in light that ICANN seeks to control the online lives of over 7 billion people in earth.

If ICANN was a shark Tank pitch, Mr. Wonderful would be out of the deal. Barbara Corcoran would be out too because ICANN might not be a fit for QVC. Mark Cuban would be struggling to 'brand' ICANN. Cuban says he is a person kinda guy. Cuban would listen carefully to ICANN President Fadi Chehade not reveal the people Fadi is fronting. Cuban would listen to Fadi misrepresent ICANN being secure. Damon would have choked at ICANN 51s party scene. Despite, producers, video cams and all Damon would be out, most likely. Damon is a dollars dude when it comes down to it, and ICANN is adding up in a Bad Way.

The US Government put their dollars where their mouths have been, not funding ICANN in the 2015 budget, slowing down ICANN's push to pull its cash cow away from the Department of Commerce. ICANN exploded from being a $70 million dollar a year "charity" into rolling in to the hundreds of millions in 2013, with ICANN auctioning thousands of gTLDs to Registrars. ICANN has become an Investors speculative investment under the umbrella of the DoC, the Department of Commerce.

No one really has a grasp on what ICANN is. ICANN's lawyers, Jones Day, pled in DC District Court that ICANN is not the decider of its decisions. This declaration is a GAO moment waiting to happen.

GAO? You remember. They are the government agency few cared about untilthe GAO made headlines with its Vegas junkets for government workers while America is in a recession. No word yet about if ICANN is submitted to the GAO for investigation. Most likely not in that heads will tumble as the con will become public. ICANN is a retirement cash cow for former NTIA workers who figured out a good thing while working on a government time and dime. Hmmm. With the millions, Croker and Cerf are raking in with each newest gTLD auction, are they collecting government pensions? Just asking.

Will ICANN submit to a GAO investigation. Will ICANN answer if ICANN is a US government entity or a non-profit as the NTIA workers set ICANN up to be. If ICANN cops to it claiming to be a non-profit then the Darshana-Leitner Law center will collect the Judgement ordered by the DC Court against .ir, Iran. If ICANN cops to be a government entity, then ICANN has a lot of explaining to do to the GAO.

ICANN's board is not big on giving answers. ICANN ceo Steve Crocker wont state where 1net.org is listed as a nonprofit.

Therein lies the magic of owning the keys to the doors of the internet. Puppetmaster ICANN creates illusory entities that exist but don't or don't exist but do .

Complicated? Not at all.

Whisper, the app, had become the hauteur trend something about a masochistic global society begging for more lack of privacy pain.

Users thought they were anonymous . The Guardian newspaper from whence Greenwald who released the Snowden leaks from, after the fact notified users they will be spied on until the day they die. Or after

In a completely unrelated matter, a daughter got back a text from the grave years after mom was buried. Ok. The daughter therapeutically kept texting her mom then one day mom texted back. It seems that O2 reassigned the dead mum's number to a new user. The new user thinking the texts were a joke finally responded "I am watching over you."

Whisper, the app, was outed to be watching over all 'posters' including government employees from afar. Whisper is located offshore in the Philippines. 100 employees are keeping data. Whisper doesnt delete, after all, blackmail in the making.

The relevancy to ICANN is whispers tld, .sh , does not exist when searched in Whois.com, ICANN's search page for tld owners. The Whois search result says .sh does not exist. But it does have to exist to be a domain online a domain. .sh must have an ISP, numbers, since .sh is a domain.

.sh can't be traced.

The reality is that ICANN isn't being forthcoming about having back door deals of ID active in collecting data on legislators. And people, globally, going beyond wiener gate and the selfie that roiled congress. The implication is not knowing his and who governed will be in charge of icann once ICANN leaves America . Will the data be abused is like asking if pigs fly or if it walks like a duck, is it a duck .

With ICANN having domain owners like perezhilton hiding addressed of service under entities like domains by proxy.com now Hiding offshore then can things get worse?

Yes. America is toast when ICANN leaves U.S. control.

It comes down to the contract and to the DC court case. ICANN's pleadings may be sealing bits own fate. Until then, ICANN is playing God, deciding who shall live and who shall die online or just be a phantom with a virtual wall.

﻿﻿How ever ICANN has managed to fly underneath the diplomatic and USTR radar is a feat worth marvelling in its chicanery when 'things' like the Keystone pipeline are held back because State, as we in the DC industry call the US Diplomatic Cadres, stepped in the middle.

That ICANN continues to fail to get beyond claims that ICANN is secure even though ICANN can, will, and will again, be hacked. Like, hello?

The language of ICANN's respect for foreign nations is a kerfluffle, profiting ICANN with its exponential rollout of gTLDS without proper oversight. Matters involving foreign governments are under oversight of multiple government agencies yet the only agency prominent in this conversation is DoC, the Department of Commerce.

The elephant in the room is the question not being asked nor answered. IS Larry Strickling, the DoC Secretary, a former NTIA employee, setting up ICANN and ICANN's desired punt of IANA to under United Nations oversight, setting his and his cronies up for their post NTIA retirement careers, in the same way Crocker and Cerf appear to have set up ICANN for their post NTIA careers.

As for (dot)Madrid? You have to be kidding. Selling .city and .country names is a recipe for fraud the global economic system will collapse from. So, no. Step away from the .City/country to save America from a diplomatic nightmare that could precipitate World War III. You ask? No one will be able to tell fast enough, with a finger on the button, if the 'hit', the fraud is coming from a real government agency or a faux entity that ICANN, America's ICANN allowed to foster....

If there was ever a time for more government involvement in anything, it is now in ICANN because in the proverbial the 'nutters are running the madhouse' scenario, it is now. Congress? Help! Do something.﻿﻿

﻿﻿In a matter of speaking, the rubber is hitting the road in the matter of ICANN or as other might put it, ICANN's push has come to shove. ICANN, ordered to produce papers pursuant to a DC Court judgement, claims that domains like Iran's domain, sold by ICANN for $185,000, with an annual $25,000 maintenance fee have no value.

ICANN claims the "non-profit" is not accountable for others crimes. ICANN says the US government is. ICANN is under contract with the Feds. ICANN's contract signed in 2000 was 8 pages long. ICANN's contract signed in 2006 is 32 pages long. (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-contract-14aug06-en.pdf)

ICANN rolled out, for sale, a slate of ICANN domains that ICANN told a DC Court judge have no value, the domains that is, not the Judge. ICANN's affiliate contract says different.

Registrants contracts obligate them to keep in force "commercial general liability insurance with policy limits of at least US $500,000." Other Registrar 'short leashes' include the Registrar "not being able to sell ICANN's Accredited Registrant logo or (the Registrar) from otherwise representing itself as accredited by ICANN," or ICANN having the right to terminate Agreements, not the US Government, ICANN told the DC Courts is accountable.

Why termination? Material misrepresentation, material accuracy, misleading statements, 5.3, Termination of Agreement by ICANN, 5.3.1 or 5.3.3, "Any officer or director of Registrar is convicted of a felony or of a misdemeanor related to financial activities or is judged by a court to have committed fraud or breach of fiduciary financial activities or is judged by a court to have committed fraud or breach of fidicuary duty or is the subject determination that ICANN deems as substantive..." (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/agreement-2012-02-25-en).

Where does Iraq, Iran or even .ru come in to play here?

The pricey TLDs provide a picture of where or world's head is at. .coop sells for $199.81, .creditcard sells for $103.97, .investments sells for $69.98, .io sells for $79.99, .loans sells for $69.98, .luxury comes at a cost of $414.00, .press sells for $68.96, .sh sells for $79,99. Travel? .travel goes for $88.81.

Tragic isnt it when .us and .uk, allies in commerce, are sunk low, real low. Wonder now how ICANN is going to explain, again, to the DC Judge how domains have no value. I cant wait to hear from Fadi Chehade, ICANN's CEO, explain to the Legislators where all the money ICANN is bring in is going. Now, mind you, this is what Hover posted. Multiply these valuations times all the other TLD's ICANN, the 'non-profit' is hustling around the world, America's debt worries will be over, if the money was coming to Americans that is. All the immigrants from here to eternally will be paid for, billions, and then some the US Government is almost losing.

A little bit of housekeeping, first. Some crackerjack forensic boy lawyer not working for Congress or ICANN will have to go to ICANN's contracts issued in 2000 and then again in 2006. Something in the 200 contract said the US Government has to approve all fees, all changes and all yada yadas.

This will be fun, IRS.

A small hiccup ICANN. Respecting ICANN's intent to move IANA to Brussels or Luxembourg or Singapore or the United Nations (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/beckstrom-speech-united-nations-14dec10-en.pdf) or wherever, as long as IANA is in the USA, there is something about ‘separation of Church and State...’ Selling .church may be verboten. Something to think about… oh, yeah, and ‘.blackfriday.com’ America already had the Redskin issue. Probably not a good GTLD to sell, moving forward. Somehow, guess is Congress is going to redline a lot of the GTLD’s IANA, America’s company has been approving under the wire. Hey. What can you do. Congress cant be everywhere. That said, Congress does cut deals in good faith with unsuspected Bad Actors.​Congressional Research Service issued a White Paper October 28, 2009, “Internet Domain Names: Background and Policy Issues.” Lennard G Kruger, a specialist in Science and Technology Policy called ICANN a “public benefit corporation” (Page 3). Kruger wrote in “ICANN Basics” that Internet explosion “led to a marked growth of the ICANN budget, from revenues of about $6 million and a staff of 14 in 2000, to revenues of $60 million and a staff of 110 in 2009.” Kruger wrote, “ICANN (not the Federal Government) is funded primarily through fees paid to ICANN by registrars and registry operators.” Kruger continues “In 2009, ICANN is receiving 92% of its total revenues from registry and registrar fees (41% from registry fees, 51% from registrar fees.)” (http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/97-868.pdf)

ICANN provides domain names under which lewdness is promoted on line, hatred and racism are incited, torture and beheadings are broadcast globally, theft of personal property such as ARTS Content is disseminated globally unable to be tracked because ICANN’s cohort sets up firewalls, of sorts, blocking search results to track for example naked photos of Hollywood celebrities deciding to shoot Home Porn.

ICANN claims the US Government contract gives ICANN clean hands in business dealings with IRAN and possibly, other entities US law forbids business dealings with, suggesting the US Government is guilty of these crimes ICANN is refusing to produce documents on pursuant to the DC Court’s order.

Oh what a tangled World Wide Web is weaved when one attempts to deceive.

Nobel Prize laureate, economist Douglass North said these chilling words while accepting his prize, "If the institutional framework rewards piracy, then piratical organizations will come into existence; and if the institutional framework rewards productive activities, then organizations – firms – will come into existence to engage in productive activities."

But Grooveshark did not do its crime alone. Grooveshark had help from others in committing this Intetional crime. Grooveshark has “conspirators.” Grooveshark would not have been found online, responsive to Searches, without Google and other search engines,. Grooveshark’s co-founders would not have had their online Alias, their Domain name “grooveshark.com”, without ICANN.

ICANN says without its US Government contract there would be no ICANN which means according to ICANNN’s explanation that the US Government has gone in to the business of selling “.wtf”. Really?

ICANN is a week out from its Los Angeles Conference.There are galas in each city ICANN hosts its “governance” conference. There will be no gala in LA. Speculating? The difference between LA and London and Istanbul and…? Legislators proximity to attend. And the IRS. Legislators may show up, would question ICANN’s gala opulence. And at the same time ICANN is accountable for global theft online of IP, and global incitement of hate, increasing beheadings, etc. Without identifiable domain names, the Internet would be a mess of numbers. Without domains, Bad Actors would have fewer places to ie show beheadings to diners. As for the IRS? Love ‘em, America’s pitbulls.

With all the privacy issues tearing at Google at this time, one would think legislators would connect the dots on Do-Not-Let-IANA go out of America. There are far too many questions besides, European Governments are challenging Google and other Internet Providers with Privacycrimes. ICANN wont cooperate with court orders in America.

ICANN is playing a dangerous game. ICANN is pushing liability up the food chain at the US Government, ICANN alleges it works for. There is a contract between the US Federal Government and ICANN. Contracts have clauses, performance clauses, operational obligations. ICANN’s contract with the US Government was first signed in 2000, (https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/iana-contract-2000-02-09-en)

ICANN is orchestrating world confusion. Without domain names then Internet would be a W, W, W world of ISP numbers. Names make numbers warm and fuzzy. The internet of names with the like “kike.com”, “Cunt.com”, “F**.com”, “nigger.com” albeit “nigger.com”, are facilitated through ICANN. ICANN sets up domain names each daily. ICANN is making money. GTLD’s cost $185,000 the $25,000 to own.

Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, back at the March 2014 ICANN hearing in the House Judiciary, announced she would fly to an ICANN meeting nearby, on ‘her plane.’ Question to ask is was Zoe invited to attend ICANN’s conference in Century City, October 12-17. ICANN didn’t do the greatest of jobs getting word out to Legislators. In fact, on home turf, ICANN isn’t putting on the glitzy gala ICANN toasted with in London. Most likely, to avoid legislators seeing how taxpayers monies are spent. ICANN is safe. Legislators rely on staff to do diligence when it comes to research. In a world of beheadings, stolen naked celeb pics sold around the world and ebola, ICANN is low on the totem pole, almost as low as FINRA, equally unknown. Youtube videos and photos of ICANN’s galas past are plastered everywhere. It is the IOT, after all.

A lot of money is at stake. .luxury x $414 x infinite purchasers? Do digital calculators even go that high. Things are getting hotter, for ICANN that is.

ICANN is the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, with “stewardship” of ICANN is pushing to “steward” IANA out of American control. IANA, a cash cow, a billion dollar cash cow, was funded with American taxpaying dollars. US government contracted with former NTIA employees in 2000, Steve Crocker and a few cronies with a tad of a tall tale being told. Vint Cerf, one of the ICANN cronies, claims he built the Internet.

Vint Cerf did not build the web. Sir Tim Berners-Lee did. ICANN was incorporated, 1998. Berners-Lee warns the US government against letting IANA go to ICANN. Congress needs to call to testify Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the man who proposed created a global hypertext document system so researchers could put information online where their colleagues could find the info, at will, any hour, any day. The year was 1989. Cerf, vice president and chief Internet evangelist at Google, is the current chairman of the American Registry for Internet Numbers and former chairman of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). Vint Cerf worked at NTIA, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration.Jon Postel created a ‘phone book’ for domains. One column has the ‘phone’ number. The other column has the corresponding name. Jon Postel, then at USC, worked out this ‘phone book’ of ISPs and names idea. Life was simpler then. 5 GLTDs. Things changed. The Internet is getting nastier.

ICANN is explained simply.

People create websites with domain names that insult, host stolen property, show of body parts doing things in position one would maintain should be private. Beheadings, bestiality and Walmart shoppers backside couldn’t be aired over the Internet without ICANN domains. Website and blogs with pictures of the exposed naked selfies shot by Rhianna, Kim Kardashian, Anna Kenrick, Jennifer Lawrence are on sites with their domain named managed by ICANN. Payment is taken in Bitcoins. Bitcoins are a currency that don’t exist, physically, that is. Persons robbed of Bitcoins are, oh well, screwed. Stolen Content sold on other than owner’s websites, or Etsy shops, need ICANN domain names to do so. Oh yeah, the State Department funded it, TOR Project, that is (https://www.torproject.org/about/sponsors.html.en) ICANN decides what names may stay up and which should come done.

Hatred and abuse and theft online can be stopped. Litigation in America will decrease. And, likely, some people would go to jail. ICANN must obey its court orders.

ICANN is refusing to turn information to Shurat Hadin Law Center, on Iran’s top-level domains and Syria and North Korea domains to terror victims over to a DC Court, ICANN Court Filings, Case 1:01-cv-01655-RMU, Document 106-1, filed July 29, 2014. Darshan-Leitner, Israel’s arguing for the victims, wrote “ICANN could “pull the plug” on Iran’s Internet, suspending use of the .ir domain and disconnecting Iranian IP addresses from the web.”

Jones Day, attorneys for ICANN argue “ccTLDS are not property subject to attachment…. Not “owned” by the countries to which they are assigned… relevant ccTLDS are not within the District of Columbia or even in the United States” and that ICANN “does not have the unilateral power or authority to re-delegate the ccTLDS and doing so would interfere with contractual relationships” and that “forced re-delegation of these ccTLDS would destroy the value of the ccTLDS, the rights of the domain name holders and jeopardize the manner in which the Internet operates.”

Law firm Jones Day states ICANN has a contract with the US, albeit badly written with few protections for IANA’s ‘investors’, the American people, crowdfunding the Feds program. (http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/sf_26_pg_1-2-final_award_and_sacs.pdf)Darshan-Leitner said, “Iran pays fees to ICANN to license its Internet assets. The US District Court ruled that those fees, along with the assets themselves, could be used to satisfy the Iranian debt to the terror victims plaintiffs. Included in the judgment are all the “top-level domain” (TLD) names provided by ICANN to Iran, including the .IR TLD, the Persian-language ایران TLD, and all Internet Protocol (IP) addresses being utilized by the Iranian government and its agencies.” (http://www.israellawcenter.org/page.asp?id=&show=photo&pn=1494&ref=report)

IANA was to transfer to a private company. ICANN is a non profit. Confirming if the US Government intended “non profit” when the Government contracted with ICANN, a fine point to argue. It is a point still, at that. ICANN’s exposure for Asset collection is minimal. ICAAN’s LA offices are rented. ICANN own’s new headquarters in Brussels. There is talk of office space in Singapore, other places too (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/333f62d2-f159-11e3-9fb0-00144feabdc0.html)

ICANN is exposed. It is predictable that the families of the beheaded journalists and aides workers will sue ICANN, too. Cerf and Crocker are at risk for being sued personally for the beheading of the Americans and Brits being shown through a Domain Name approved by ICANN. Multi-stakeholders and shareholders and lawyers around the world will learn that being a volunteer does not exempt one from liability. Being a board member comes with accountability.

ICANN claims publicly it is about transparency. Cerf and Crocker are not transparent. Names of participants are not posted on Listserv’s line or shared between stake-holders. ICANN 51 Los Angeles attendee list provides an opt-out option for those attendees wanting anonymity. ICANN’s is threatening to lock up data for ICANN WHOIS.com participants. WHOIS.comis a resource for Process servers, journalists, investigators and persons wanting to serve take-down notices on Intellectual Property thieves.

Get a very clear picture of ICANN, arguing both sides of the fence depending upon wh and IANA? Think of the online rash of beheadings of Americans and Brits, if not the actual photos, the head being shown mid neck slit or after being lopped off with bodies falling to the ground, the decapitated head in hand. These would not be able to be shown by a hate group if someone or some group was not able to buy a domain name.

ICANN argued in a DC Court, the Internet is on loan from the US government with only the US Government having authority to provide that sought information. The Darshana-Leitner Law Center may have standing to sue the US government, even bringing it to the Hague on War Crimes for allowing ISIS to exist online and for allowing That may be all American legislators needed to hear to cancel IANA’s transition out of America. Or in the least, to review ICANN’s contract with the US government. Maybe even cancel it. ICANN has 13 root servers. 10 are subject to US law. Attorney Dr. Behrooz Akhlaghi reflects Congressman Tom Marino’s concern that “ICANN will be replaced by an as yet unestablished international group.”

Theresa Swinehart, Senior Advisor to the President on Strategy, said, “NTIA announced on March 14 2014 that they are planning to relinquish their stewardship of the IANA functions to the multi-stakeholder community…”. That is not true, yet, if ever. NTIA has to go through Congress first. Legislators isn’t buying Fadi Chehade’s testimony, either. Neither are other government officials around the world. What Congress needs is a Global Congressional Conference call with all parties come together at the same time at a theater near you. Call Comcast. Call Seacrest. Call Andy Cohen. Call Simon Cowell.

Berners-Lee says ICANN should not be privatized.Berners-Lee should know. The Queen, HRH, Miss E, gonged him. You say? Made him a Knight to acknowledge Berners-Lee feat.Congress has a contract with ICANN that needs a fine tooth combing. Like calling upon Judiciary witnesses staffers did not bring in, reasons unknown. Congress, call Sir Tim Berners-Lee to be a Judiciary witness. Have Darshan-Leitner tell their story of ICANN in the DC Court. Call the man who beat ICANN in the California Supreme Court. If they are still alive, call Jon Postel’s mom and siblings to appear and testify to get the rest of the story of Jon Postel’s mysterious death soon after showing his NTIA colleagues the Internet is not safe and secure and is the Greatest Highway Robbery of all time about to happen, during a time of exponential online data and Identity hackings, “ISIS” jostling for online viewer attention too. , isICANN's contract says it is a California corporation bound by California laws. Albeit, allegedly a renter, is located on Water Street in downtown LA, (Los Angeles, CA, USA 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300, Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536), ICANN is bound by California laws along with Federal laws, too.

And Beijing, China Phone: +86 10 6535 0376, Email: queries.beijingec@icann.org, listed without an adress published, at a day and time when headlines are flooded with reporting on Chinese hackers infiltrating American financial and other 'domains.' Really, ICANN.

Hey Britain, America’s got talent. We call it Congress….﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿

_______________________________________________________________THE CURRENT STATE OF THE MUSIC LICENSING MARKETPLACE(c) Carrie Devorah :_______________________________________________________________

﻿I remain puzzled why the Copyright Office is choosing to parse Copyright in to industry’s rather than adressing it head on as a Model of Copyright which is core to many industries, differing only in the Industry it is being applied to rather than the process or application which is Contract.

A deal is a deal is a deal. A copyright is a copyright be it publishing, music, film, dance or writing. What none of these industries needs is Government interfering in what is the artist’s responsibility. What an Artist demands for their ARTS is individual more reflected in esteem of the artist and their sophistication. And their gut for gamble. Individual.

The failure is in Artists refusing to take responsibility for being in business. It isn’t rocket science to learn these lessons. It is personal priority. Access for education is at fingertips these days and times with the Internet and with Social Media. Gaggles of ARTS creators meet on Forums like LinkedIn, ,chat rooms, TedTalks or through Meetups.com, starting initiatives and sharing information. These forums succeed because human nature is to share, without interference of Government… YET!!!!

The failure begins, with Artists that go to schools, in the schools not teaching the business of the business and the business of being in business. This is not just a failure of the ARTS schools. This is a failure of ALL schools to teach students, from the getgo, how to manage money and debt. Students are taught how to sign school agreements, payment plans. Students are not taught what it takes to stay afloat and out of debt. Part of that lesson is a simple one page agreement that says, simplified, “You give me money, I give you (a) my art (b) rights to my art (c ) no rights to my﻿art (d) you sell my arts at a profit you give me more money (e) you will pay me “X” amount for each copy of my Arts you sell and (f) touch my art rights without our signing on the dotted line or fail to pay me my royalties timely I will sue your backside off in this stated court”, along with maybe a few more simple enough phrases to craft for guidance. Is this governments role?

Not at all. Government has enough it cant get right. Don’t step in here. There are enough agents out there and courses online and off, that ARTS creators can learn through. If YET ANOTHER book on the topic needs to be written, I will step up to the plate but another book is not needed. What is needed is to let artists grow up and man up and make mistakes and journey on the learning curve of experience.

Government should not step in to peer 2 peer business dealings. Interfering in Peer 2 Peer business dealings is Un-American. In the ARTS? Government interference stifles creativity.

If government feels a need to mind this business too, don’t. Knowing that wont happen, let government step in to forcing schools to teach students the THE DUMMIES GUIDE TO BEING IN BUSINESS. Government has better things to do, like rewriting Title XVII to be compliant with President Obamas Plain Writing Act of 2010 and enforcing Music License issues under violations of Contract Law and Under the Criminal Code for violations.

The difference between the state of music today and when Man first hit two stones together making sound in rhythm? We have Government messing in our lives rather than letting Artists do our job- innovate and percolate.﻿﻿

Vanity Fair published the article “Prancing On A Volcano,” February 2013. An enlarged page banner in the article reads, “Today’s scale of transformation is at times almost invisible. But there hasn’t been anything like it in centuries.”

I agree.

The Vanity Fair article continues with another enlarged banner title, “Not in 500 years has the world seen such revolutionary change as it is now witnessing: the Internet, genetic engineering, mass migration, climate change, worldwide economic dislocation, a new global elite and more. Yet our leaders don’t seem to take any of it seriously.”

I agree even more.

It doesn’t seem to me that legislators take Copyright protection of Literary and Artistic works seriously enough. The conversation on Orphaned Works has gone on for how many years now in Congress without conclusive action. The Copyright office is still asking, in 2013, if there are ‘additional legislative, regulatory or voluntary solutions to be considered at this time that might be relevant to a resolution of the Orphan Works problem.’ The Copyright Office, also, wants ‘to know what has changed for Orphan Works in the legal and business environment during the past few years’ after all this time?

It isn’t rocket science to answer what has changed in the legal and business environment during the past few years. A LOT. It is a no brainer to see what has changed the global environment.

The Internet.

Technology AND the permeating sentiment in politics, in social technological networking and on the Internet have changed a Brick World of one image abuse, at a time, to our current Click Culture mindset of ‘what is yours is mine and I don’t need to give you a dime for its use.’

I was a photographer for well over a decade and an illustrator, since a few decades back. I was one of the earliest members in the Licensing Industry. I am here to make the same point to you that the music industry made with their parade of legendary, celebrity witnesses on the issue of other people file sharing artists’ music without payment ie Napster, a point that for some reason, hasn’t been made or stressed to you as to the cost of loss of livelihood to people like me, my agency, my peers and their agencies. We are the people that crawl around on the floor in the wells of your hearing rooms, legislators, recording history as you adjudicate issues that impact our lives, such as Orphan Works.

I am making my point to you as a 2D, two dimensional artist, what is mine is mine. Your job is to keep the hands of File Sharers off my 2D artistic works. Myspace, who fell off the Internet grid when the Internet was eclipsed by Facebook, is back up and running as a new entity headed by royalty earning celebrity figurehead, musical artist Justin Timberlake, JT. JT’s Myspace is reportedly using unlicensed songs from license agreements that Myspace let lapse a year earlier, avoiding in paying royalties to those musical artists. Kim Dotcom was charged with knowingly profiting, willingly sharing and illegally exchanging pirated copyright-protected material as part of the Megaupload business model. Kim encouraged people to upload music hence violating artist’s copyrights by unauthorized used. Like most, unauthorized users of copyrighted material, Dot.com operated on the ‘I will get away with it until I get caught’ mindset. The Feds did claim jurisdiction over Dotcom but Kim is back in civilian life. Kim announced he created “Mega,” his new cloud-based venture, claiming his new site is legal with files that will be harder to access due to stricter encryptions hence making it more difficult for Literary and Artistic work creators to know what of their Literary or Artistic works have been pirated and orphaned.

Paraphrasing, my friend Rodney Dangerfield, as a 2D image creator, I don’t get no respect from your office and the Feds, when it comes to my image protection. Search my name on line, there are over 4130 image results on Microsoft BING alone, many of which are works that were marked with my name and my agency’s name but have been Orphaned through intentional diabolical, unauthorized use of my Literary and Artistic works by search engines, databots, webcrawlers and the like removing mine and my agency’s credit off the photo. http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=carrie+devorah+&FORM=HDRSC2

The act of taking what belongs to someone else isn’t a new. It is an age old issue that goes back to the days of the Bible except today, stealing has been upscaled to a new buzzword called pirating. Pirating of two dimensional, 2D, images appears to have become big business hence acceptable.

I read the argument some put forth that Orphan Works are beneficial to our national heritage. No. Our national heritage is founded on the Ten Commandments, one of which is Thou Shalt Not Steal. Why should stealing from my industry- photographic/ illustrative 2D image creators – not be criminalized too? Why isn’t stealing my photographs, my illustrations, my ‘employees,’ my intellectual property, my royalties, my income and my children’s inheritance, not considered "tampering with the technical architecture of the internet,” something the Feds should look into, also? The Feds look into pirating of COACH purses, bogus perfume, UGGS and Victoria Secret lingerie. What aren’t the Feds looking into the pirating of my photographs, my stories, my artwork? Is it a matter of how you evaluate my worth. It shouldn’t be. Theft is theft. Piracy is piracy.

Rupert Murdoch calls it “plain Thievery.”

I agree with Rupert Murdoch. I disagree with the White House. The White House says, "Any provision covering internet intermediaries such as online advertising networks, payment processors, or search engines must be transparent and designed to prevent overly broad private rights of action thatcould encourage unjustified litigation that could discourage startup businesses and innovative firms from growing.” I am an innovator of business. My designs and photographs contribute to employing people. I am an entrepreneur. I am discouraged from growing by the co-operative malfeasance between the Search Engines who work for themselves and the Copyright Office, I thought worked for We The People.

Orphan Works are not a new concept. The caveman drawings in the Cave of Altamira near Santander Spain, the Sistine Chapel of cave painting, have been reproduced countless times, made into product or used for reference material such as appear on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/cave_painting Caveman drawings are presumed to be Orphan Works. Are they really Orphan Works? For all we know, in these days of genealogical online research through file sharing sites like ancestry.com, cavemen art might be drawn by an ancestor of someone reading my comment, someone yet to come along and claim ownership to the cave paintings or someone yet to be created. Coincidental to my writing my Comment on Orphan Works, Harvard geneticist George Church, a proponent of synthetic biology, is advertising for an adventurous woman to carry the embryo created from Neanderthal DNA extraction. http://www.examiner.com/article/neanderthal-surrogate-wanted-accepting-adventurous-female-applicants

The notion of a hand grab from a time back in history might sound outlandish to Americans celebrating a 200 year young country but not implausible to people who trace lineage back to the first Pilgrims, the Mayflower, the Sons or Daughters of the American Revolution or to Europeans who trace their families back centuries to the Knights of Templar. It would not be inconceivable to a Frenchman or woman who trace their lineage back to the threads of Jesus and Davidic times, to reconnect with a family heirloom or treasure that was lost overtime but found, eventually, in a museum or at an art auction or even at a yard sale as was the case recently with a 16th Century piece of art found in Indiana or the 65 glass plates valued at $200 million that Rick Norsigian bought for $45 at a Fresno California garage sale. The painting and the glass plates were Orphan Works, by definition of this Copyright Office, until the painting was confirmed to be painted by Francois Quesnel of the 1573 French court and the glass plates were confirmed as Ansel Adams artworks. The NOLA article said adressing the value of the artwork said if it “has active buyers who are descendants, the value could be increased.” The artwork should belong to the descendants Quesnel. The glass plates should have been returned to Ansel Adams heirs, his children Michael and Anne, or his grandchildren or to the The Ansel Adams Publishing Rights Trust. http://www.nola.com/homegarden/index.ssf/2011/02/16th-century_oil_painting_foun.html

With the continuing technological evolution of genealogical searches bringing families on foreign shores together, the idea that the United States Copyright Office is deliberating easing Copyright ownership authentication by deciding a Literary or Artwork piece can be determined an Orphan Work without requiring certification, through a real time investigation performed by a professional investigator, is a legal Sword of Damocles hanging over entities or persons using “Orphan Works” without authorization. It appears, by seeking to establish guidelines for Orphan Work use, the Copyright Office is trying to placate constituents intent on using the Literary or Artistic work for personal or commercial purpose. In doing so, Copyright Office is putting people at risk for potential litigations that may end up with huge awards payouts from people who may be accused of personal property theft or accused of using artworks and relics without authorization. The unauthorized user may get sued and sued big time.

All artworks and sculptures, including artworks and sculptures filling museums around our Nation’s capitol, started with an artist, someone, somewhere. Orphan Works, historically, were artifacts and relics brought back as spoils of war that found their way into museums under the label of ‘archeology’. The Egyptian Rosetta Stone, the key to unlocking Ancient Egypt's hieroglyphic language, made its way into the British Museum. The Greek Nike, Victory, of Samothrace, made its way into the Louvre collection in France.

Some countries are currently requesting repatriation of relics and artifacts stolen from their land. Repatriation, the act of giving back something laid claim to in war, that did not belong to them, is sort of like the Orphan Works conversation here, it appears the Copyright Office is trying to legislate for monetization which would end up increasing the worth of the profitable US Copyright Office. Other countries are doing the right thing, returning the relics, antiquities and art when asked for them possibly to avoid litigation or the appearance of impropriety. Italy gave back the obelisk taken from Ethiopia before World War II. Other countries and their museums don’t want to give back to the requesting country the stolen items. The British and other museums in London, Paris and New York argue that keeping relics in their possession promotes scientific research on the objects and encourages millions of visitors tourism, annually.The countries relics were removed from argue it is important museums of the relics origin themselves have the objects reflecting their cultural heritage and national history, not foreign museums.

The Library of Congress has the only surviving copy of Martin Waldseemullers world map also known as America’s Birth Certificate. Waldseemuller drew on this map, Columbus’ discovery of the lands named “America,” a new and separate continent based on data Amerigo Vespucci gathered on his voyage to the New World. Waldeemuller cannot be contacted. He lived in the 16th Century. Throughout the centuries, Waldeemuller’s map was bought and sold multiple times. Cartographer Johannes Schöner, a German globe maker, bought the map as did, eventually, the family of Prince Waldburg-Wolfegg. The Prince’s family acquired Schöner's portfolio of maps, keeping the cartography in their German

Baden-Württemberg castle where it remained until 1901 where Jesuit priest Josef Fischer found Schoner’s maps. A few years back, the Prince, accompanied by his son, came in person to donate Waldseemuller’s America map to the Library of Congress. With a stretch of definition of “Orphan Work,” ‘a copyrighted work for which the copyright owner cannot be contacted’ has potential culpability here in that a descendant of Waldseemuller could conceivably pop up claiming lineage to the map maker and allege theft of the historical treasure.

Inconceivable for the scenario to happen? Not at all in an ancestry.com world that brings genealogy to a descendants fingertips on a PC or iPad at home, in a library or in our DNA duplicating world.

The same rational to entertaining the acceptance of the concept of Orphan Work in the Copyright world can be applied to other historical documents, such as the Bliss copy of the Gettysburg address in the White House. The Bliss copy was sold by Alexander Bliss to Oscar Cintas a former Cuban ambassador to America. Cintas left the document to the people of the United States. The Gettysburg adress is the few words President Abraham Lincoln spoke after being invited by attorney David Wills to speak at Gettysburg. The Bliss copy, the only signed copy of the Gettysburg address, was given by President Lincoln to a friend long after Lincoln delivered his Gettysburg Adress speech. Much like the America Map, the Bliss copy has been bought and sold and reproduced so many times. It has become part of American commerce itself. Reproductions of the Gettysburg Adress are sold all over DC in gift shops, museum stores and pop up inaugural souvenir sites. The value of the royalties a genealogically traced descendant owner could claim if instituting their claim to the work their original along with rights to its reproduction alleging it was stolen or taken or squired away in the middle of the night from their family? Immeasurable.

More contemporary and geographically closer, here in DC, to be included, in the conversation of Orphan works, is the example within the USHM, the United States Holocaust Museum. A tourist walks into the museum. Eventually, the tourist walks under an entry way filled with photographs of people, nameless humans stripped of their dignity by their Nazi torturers who replaced their identities with ink blue tattoo numbers permanent in their skin. Those death camp inmates, survived by unidentified photographs affixed to the walls and ceiling of this entry way, have become Orphaned Works. The USHM offers each Museum visitor a passport with the name and story of one person murdered during the Holocaust. While linking Passports of Dead to people touring the museum is a cute marketing ploy, the dead’s photographs are Orphan Works, leaving the pictured, the people in the passport photo, unknown until someone, perchance, recognizes them decorating the Holocaust museum entry. In some ways, the murdered portrayed on the USHM wall, are similar in concept to photos of nameless people in period clothes, or such, found in an antique shop, a yard sale or a photo album from the days when there were photograph albums. People buy and sell on the Internet, on Ebay, images that artisans use in Etsy projects, appear in books, documentaries, the list goes on. What gives anyone the right to replicate, commercialize or put the photos of the Holocaust murdered in a Museum entry without permission especially if there is no way permission can be found. www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=vintage+black+and+white+pictures

The question with images from history- artworks, the Waldseemuller map, the Bliss copy of the Gettysburg address, and dead in photographs- is who owns the right to reproduce these respective Intellectual properties. The copyright owner may be dead and gone. As pointed out earlier, the excuse the creator cannot be found, does not bear weight in these days of increasingly sophisticated genealogical searching tools. There is every possibility someone may pop up declaring ‘that person in that photo belongs to me’ or ‘that is my family.’

People, like countries, are requesting their stolen “Orphaned Works” be returned.

The Vienna’s Jewish Museum is looking to return hundreds of looted books and artworks the Nazis stole from a Bernhard Altman. Some of Altman’s collection ended up being sold to private parties by the Austrian auction house Dorotheum. Other of Altmann’s items ended up at the Vienna Jewish Museum. Museum director, Daniel Spera said “Anything that was acquired illegally ought to be returned. There will not be a hint of hesitation.”

The Nazis set up headquarters to operate from in cities they occupied from where they systematically scoped out houses filled with art collections. In 1939, during the occupation of Czechoslovakia, the Nazis took over the home of the Arthur Feldmann family. Feldmann’s home was filled with priceless art. The Nazis tortured and killed Feldmann. Mrs. Feldmann died in Auschwitz. Sotheby’s came in possession of Feldmann’s collection, putting it up for auction. Pieces of Feldmann’s collection ended up in the British Museum. Seventy plus years later, 2002, in the Feldmann heirs brought claim against the British Museum.

The British Museum trustees decided the Feldmann heirs claim represented a “unique moral claim which they wish to meet.” The Felmann’s personal items did not belong to the Museum. It was a no brainer to the British Museum. The collection wasn’t the British Museum’s to keep, a philosophy supported by the Washington Conference Principles, an international effort, that emerged to locate rightful owners or heirs of artworks looted by the Nazis. The Museum gave the Feldmann art collection back. Forty countries signed on declaring their intention to make it easier to return art stolen during the Nazi era.

The views of Daniel Spera, the British museum trustees and signators to the Washington Conference Principles are not the moral compass of today’s Free Internet proponents. Free Internet proponents believe someone else’s

Intellectual property, literary and artistic works, online is for the taking, without asking, without paying, without returning- without morality. Legislators backed down on SOPA and SIPA, due to the Internet blackout blackmail for a-day-without-Internet. The legislators, having backed down from a protest launched by people who advocate stealing from fellow Americans, has me wondering about the Congressmen and Senators legislative morality? Are the legislators, by backing down then saying it is ok to steal from me? From people like me? From people who want to be creative entrepreneurs like me?

I don’t think it should be so.

Van Gogh died penniless as had other artists like him. Their art and name live, and profit, long after their death. In the example of Vincent Van Gogh, his brand is making a fortune for others who are not related to him, people who stole Van Gogh’s Intellectual Property. Van Gogh’s art is reproduced by many. One company, licensing the Van Gogh name, is staking their claim on Van Gogh as an investment brand www.brand-names.com. Brand-names.com site says “The fact is when the artist was living during the 19th century; he never sold a single painting. He remained a starving artist and never knew the popularity and the worth that his work has today…. Investing in brands name such as Van Gogh.” Legislating Orphan Works to be marketably acceptable is approval for Internet pirates, bullies and thieves to continue to steal my literary and artistic works hence stealing my livelihood and the inheritance I leave to my children. Is that your intention?

Registering literary and artistic artworks does not come cheap. An Intellectual Property owner can spend a lot of money registering each single image or collection they create. Registration of copyrights, in America, may be expedited for the purpose of litigation. To begin with, there is the expense from Mandatory Deposit. Section 407 of the Copyright Act (Title 17, US Code) subjects all works published in the United states to a mandatory deposit requirement “owner of copyright or the exculsive right of publication” in a work published in the United

States must deposit the required number of copies in the Copyright Office within three months of the date of publication…. defined as “distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership or by rental, lease or lending.” Not sure how the kool aid got drunk on this one but the Copyright office is who profits from registering Literary or Artistic works. What is then the definition and jurisdiction of something posted online?

In the real world, there is no value, in and unto itself, in an image being registered for copyright with the Library of Congress. The owner of the literary or artistic work owner must find legal representation in order for them to defend their Copyright. There is no guarantee they will find a lawyer eager to take on their case. Lawyers evaluate cases based on invested time vs expected return. An infringed copyright owner may have a valid claim to unauthorized use of their copyright. That said, if a lawyer doesn’t see dollars, the copyright owner will not find legal redress.

So you see, talk of Orphans Works isn’t new conversation, at all, just an age old concept repackaged to present unauthorized use of other people’s Literary and Artistic works as being acceptable and as another potential source of income for, what hear tell, is the only profitable agency in the United States government.

Stealing property that belongs to someone else is not acceptable. Taking what belongs to others flies in the face of America’s founding principles. Stealing what belongs to me will never be acceptable.

Every image, every sketch, every traceoff, every photo I create belongs to me. These are MY employees. IF someone wants to use my artistic works, it is under my terms, under my license. My grandfather used to say ‘why buy the milk when the cow gives it away for free.’ With online thievery ramping up stealing literary and artistic works, almost no one is buying the ‘milk.’ Thieves are stealing Intellectual Property, one file share upload at a time, collecting then removing removing the Intellectual Proptery from websites, from a search engines, from Site A who stole the IP from Site B who stole it from Site C- an exponential disaster waiting to happen.

Filmmakers, archivists, writers, musicians, and broadcasters do and have taken advantage of “Orphan Works” broad brush stroke, too, alleging copyright owners cannot be identified and located. Half hearted searches are performed in the ‘looking’ for the copyright holder. Nowadays, many of the ‘looking for copyright holder’ searches are limited to the convenience of home or public computer online searching only without the interested party looking in books, travelling or other. Libraries and museums, as go-to research places have fallen victim to disuse since the always accessible mobile Internet as a quick-fix for research. An Internet only search is not Due Diligence when looking for a Copyright Holder. The Internet is only one of many tools that can be used to search with. The filmmakers, archivists, writers, musicians, and broadcasters argue they have the right to incorporate period material in to their contemporary works. Libraries, education institutions and museums argue they, too, have the right to digitize old books, recordings, film, manuscripts, art and photos claiming these items are for the good of the public. Period film footage, photographs, soundrecordings show up in WETA and PBS programming. Maybe, but one does not steal to justify an end.

FED EX/XEROX Copy Centers post advisory warnings alongside of their registers, warning people making copies that FED EX/XEROX does not allow copyrighted material to be xeroxed. That is what the sign says, at least. CVS offers photo retouching services, image copying services as part of their photo center menu. CVS should be concerned over with retouching photos http://www.cvsphoto.com/restore-photos in that CVS is selling a service that alters the copyright owner’s work. Photo kiosks through which people self select, print etc. are at risk in unauthorized use of copyrighted material- making copies, etc- as are their online rivals such as Shutterfly www.shutterflyinc.com . The list goes on and on. Shutterfly Terms of Service are found at www.shutterflyinc.com/terms .

There never really was a real way to oversee or regulate how copyrighted materials were handled once they leave their creators hands before the birth of the Internet. In these days of the Internet, trying to create new revenue streams off Copyright issues, such as the Copyright office is attempting to do with Orphan Works, is nebulous. Hot bed issues are pouring forth faster than the rate magma flows from a volcano. Regulation is so far behind the Internet inventive stream, maybe the only solution is acknowledging the the Copyright Office not try to play catch up, in a veiled effort to ‘be cool’, and just admit since, the Internet cannot be caught up with, that the rule to stand by is the tried and true Old Glory standard, the Berne Convention. Simplify. Don’t complicate. The Berne Convention designates the moment an artist’s work birth’s hands it is copyrighted. End of story.

Fair Use is not the right to publish a copyright holder’s Literary or Artistic work full image or thumbnail size work, claiming the work will be used for education or non-profit purposes, an unauthorized use excuse I am told too often, by people, upset I request to remove my images, used without authorization from the offenders blog or website even book. In the case of http://www.thinking-catholic-strategic-center.com/church-and-state-in-art.html , the site host expressed his displeasure against me on his site writing,

“Photo taken down; see comments below. Carrie Devorah doesn’t want you to see this copyrighted picture unless she can make a whole lot of money off of it. Isn’t that sweet of her? If you have a suitable photo for this spot that was not taken by Carrie Devorah, please let me know”and'“Whatever you do, make sure any images you send are not in any way linked to one Carrie Devorah, because we don’t want her to get her panties in a wad and get back on her broom again. Regards, Vic.”

Let me clarify for you, that rude comment posted “on his site” is publicly seen. So as you see, a copyright owner standing up for their right, is open to slander from someone displeased with being told they used a copyrighted images without authorization. I had registered my God In The Temples of Government collection with the Copyright Office. The Copyright system did not protect me from online slander.

Some people seek to mitigarFair Use is claimed toFair Use of a Literary or Artistic work is “a portion,” limiting how much of the literary or artistic work can be copied of my artwork or photographic image. Fair Use, the legal doctrine states ‘portions of copyrighted materials may be used without permission of the copyright owner provided the use is fair and reasonable, does not substantially impair the value of the materials, and does not curtail the profits reasonably expected by the owner.’ Fair Use does not allow the use of thousands of my images appearing in Google, Microsoft, Yahoo search engines without my license or authorization appearing in a gallery format, are made in to Orphan Works when the Search Engine places my images in to their gallery, first stripping my images of my name and my agencies name and the name of the paying customer in whose site or page my photo was licensed to appear.

My pirated images appearing in Search Engine galleries are re-shared at usable sizes- thumbnail, half up or full reproducable size- without payment to me or my agency. Unauthorized use of my images steals my children’s inheritance.

The Copyright Office published this statement “for good faith users, orphan works are a frustration, a liability risk and a major cause of gridlock in the digital marketplace.” I disagree. The days of good faith users has been decimated by the Internet. Orphan Works is appearing to b e orchestrated by the Search Engine giants and proponents of Free Internet. The claim of Fair Use is abused. Lawyers and regulators must hit the Refresh Button on their understanding of Fair Use by reading its definition, again and again until they get it, rather than allowing copyright violators to hide behind a claim of Fair Use as a way to escape legal action for unauthorized copyright use.

Google did the Unauthorized Use First approach with books too. Google Inc.had the idea books in libraries should be free to everyone. Google began copying books on library shelves, without authorization. Google Inc. called their project Google Books, Google Book Search, Googles Library Project and Google Print. Google Inc., using optical character recognition to search books and magazines, scanned then converted print books and magazines into data now stored in Google’s digital database. Self publishers and e-publishers, are now joined in the battle to defend their literary and artistic works. Google is still in dispute with publishers and authors over published works Google pirated.

The word “pirated” is heard mostly in conjunction with movies and music. It is a word that should be used with copyrighted images too. Copyrighted images are trafficked, pirated across borders, both domestically and internationally, interstate and intra-state. Online search engines make it easier for literary and artistic works to be stolen faster undetected. I locate unauthorized uses of my images when I do online searches of my name. A search of my name on Microsoft’s BING (referenced above) turned up, last search, about 4,130 images. The search results turning up are mostly domestic results of my name, more local than

foreign uses. AI design, artificial intelligence uses algorithms producing search results that synchronize with prior searches, my location, North America, and other data making it far more difficult, if not impossible, for me to see search results of unauthorized copyright used in other countries let alone locate use of my photos countries that practice censorship. I won’t be able to see commercial and personal use of my literary and artistic works once my Intellectual property has been used offline. Intellectual property, literary and artistic works are showing up in commerce decorating T-shirts, poster cards or similar uses, without the IP owner able to control these online to off line thefts. Intellectual property converted into product after stolen off the internet coming in to the country through a port of entry runs a good chance of not being caught. There are too many ports without enough enforcement to cover the access points. The counterfeit or pirated goods they are most likely to stop, isn’t a Carrie. It’s a pirated “Coach” accessory.

The original Orphan Works are artifacts and relics. The percentage of stolen artifacts and relics is a drop in the bucket compared to the tsunami of 2D images stolen every nanosecond as Internet and technology advance at warp speed pushed by a generation of social networking entrepreneurs who invent ignoring regulatory laws let alone respecting other people’s ownership of ideas, literary and artistic works. 2.5 quintillion bytes of data are created everyday. “Every day, we create 2.5 quintillion bytes of data — so much that 90% of the data in the world today has been created in the last two years alone. This data comes from everywhere: sensors used to gather climate information, posts to social media sites, digital pictures and videos, purchase transaction records, and cell phone GPS signals to name a few. This data is big data.” (www-01.ibm.com/software/data/bigdata)

Copyrighted images are being stolen from our computers at an exponential speed that was unpredictable a few years back. IBM posts to its big data page this alert “Velocity: Sometimes 2 minutes is too late. For time-sensitive processes such as catching fraud big data must be used as it streams into your enterprise in order to maximize its value. Scrutinize 5 million trade events created each day to identify potential fraud. Analyze 500 million daily call detail records in real-time to predict customer churn faster.”

Congressional members have been meeting with the Technology reps for years now. Either you, Congress, knew this data or the Technology leaders you rely on didn’t tell you and you Congress did not do your Due Diligence to not trust the Wolves in Sheep’s clothing. Who is doing the searching for you? Its not rocket science. I found this data in two seconds of searching.

Hyperlinks used to lead a viewer to Intellectual property housed on a website. Search engines like Google, Bing, Yahoo access our postings by using webcrawlers and databots to enter our websites where we thought our Intellectual Property was safe. Did you ever really believe the online tech in Malaysia who says, while he is in your computer making a software repair, that he is only go into that “one” program and wont look anywhere else? I have a bridge-to-nowhere to sell you, if you do.

Websites are entered without a site owner or host or Intellectual Property owner knowing. Do you really believe your passwords won’t be compromised? IBM’s pitch line, SOMETIMES TWO MINUTES IS TOO LATE, is chilling. You will never be able to help me oversee the piracy rate of my images being stolen. You need to go back to Square One and enforce the Berne Convention.

Italian artists Eva and Franco Mattes stole thousands of photographs from people’s hard drives after stumbling on a file sharing program that misconfigured their profiles. The Mattes said they figured the program out by accident. What they said and did were different by legal definition. The Mattes said they are not hackers. The Mattes did copy contents of about 100 people's hard drives, downloading pictures, videos, and music they then arranged into a slide show they presented at an art gallery. “Stolen Photographs” showed stuff safely presumed Not For Public Consumption- people's smiling friends, grinning lovers, lazy pets, unmade beds, women squeezing their breasts for the camera. Mattes said back in 1995, they scouting targets, often taking before-and-after photographs or filming themselves stealing the material they called " relics." “Stolen Photographs” show curator, Barbara Rodriguez Munoz, said “the art-minded crime spree is intended to raise questions about what's private, what's public, and what makes art " art.” http://news.yahoo.com/stolen-digital-photographs-display-london-144802090.html And what makes voyeurism/invasion of privacy/stalking/theft a crime gets swept under the table.

The Copyright Office requires due diligence be done to search for Orphan Works owners. As discussed earlier, due diligence is open to interpretation if not spelled out explicitly. Premise of presumption of Orphan Law that people finding images make effort to find owners to determine if an image is orphaned is flawed. Most won’t. The Mattes did due diligence to know the IP in their show “Stolen Photographs.” The photos on the Mattes were not Orphaned Works. The artworks were stolen.The presumption that an owner might trip, that across use of their image is flawed. Most don’t. It was a fluke the family photograph in Europe was seen by a friend, traveling, who recognized them otherwise their personal family moment might never have been caught. The fact is people are more willing to stand for days to be first on line for the first new Apple iphone or for the newest release of NIKE sneakers, than they are willing to research to be sure the literary or artistic work is an Orphan Work. People want answers Fast and Furious.

AI, artificial intelligence, creating human to trans-human level intelligence in machines, minimizes a person alleging they could not figure the literary or artistic work’s owner. Some online search results produce millions of online results. There alone are millions of opportunities to locate an IP’s owner, sitting there, going through the links one by one. AI, artificial intelligence is what pops ads up at the top of web pages we are viewing, showing us items we recently searched for on ‘cars.com’ or ‘marthastewart.com.’ Click off one ad, it tells you, the click may remove them but not others waiting to stalk the internet users habits. Just when a literary or artistic work owner thinks Intellectual Property unauthorized use can’t get worse, FACEBOOK announces it is integrating BING into its graph search, integrating more results from users Facebook friends along with Twitter, Foursquare, Quora, Klout, and Google Plus next to the main search results if users connect their Facebook accounts to BING.

BING announced it is “expanding beyond likes, photos, and profile information to include status updates, shared links, and comments…” Graph will rely on profile content to fuel more comprehensive search returns results. Graph search may violate the privacy of users who relied on that feature the ability for users to opt out of appearing in search results on the site. Facebook removed the feature. Sites like Gigaom initiate tracking, as I understand it, the second someone knowingly or accidentally enters their site, for example to read more about Gigaom’s Privacy Policy. Frightening is Gigaom’s disclosure that User PII, Personal Identifying Information transfers if Gigaom is acquired by a Third Party who may “collect, use or disclose information.” (http://gigaom.com/privacy-policy/)

It is nearly impossible to track an unauthorized user of Literary and Artistic Work who is claiming a Literary and Artistic Work is an Orphan Work. Copyright thieves and pirates successfully bury their identity and location behind layers of the Internet. It takes time and patience and sometimes a lot of money to possibly find out the thief is in Russia, or right next door. Reddit co-founder, Alan Swartz made “20 million pages of federal court documents available for free before the government shut him down.” The copies of the documents stored at MIT, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, were sold for 10 cents a page. Swartz was the founder of Demand Progress. Demand Progress campaigned against

A Literary and Artistic work pirate will not always be found. The Literary or Artistic work owner with diligence and an expenditure of time may be lucky to locate a contact email or land address for the unauthorized copyright, by searching online in multiple Search Engine or through “Who Is”, a lookup for “domain name search, domain name registration, available domain names, domain whois database information.” (http://www.whois.com/.) Sometimes, the search engines or site host, responding to Notices of Copyright Violation, will remove the offending Copyright pirated posting of the Literary or Artistic work. Reporting the Copyright violation to Search Engines is complicated for the Copyright owner because the Search Engines do not publish call centers or phone numbers to contact for immediate relief nor do they publish their brick addresses.

Google does not tell the owner of the Literary or Artistic work, tracking their IP theft, that Google forwards the Letter of Notice of Unauthorized Use on to Chilling Effects, “A joint project of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, University of San Francisco, University of Maine, George Washington School of Law, and Santa Clara University School of Law clinics.” (http://chillingeffects.org/) self describes “Have you received a letter asking you to remove information from a Web site or to stop engaging in an activity….If so, this site is for you…. Chilling Effects aims to help you understand the protections that the First Amendment and intellectual property laws give to your online activities…. Chilling Effects encourages respect for intellectual property law, while frowning on its misuse to "chill" legitimate activity. … We are gathering a searchable database of Cease and Desist notices sent to Internet users like you. We invite you to input Cease and Desist letters that you've received into our database, to document the chill… Once the notice is in our database, clinical law students will be able to annotate it with questions and answers.” My takedown letter to requesting my photo of George Bush be taken down off the Internet appeared on Chilling Effects without prior notice to me. The photo was not an Orphan Work. The photo is stripped of my name and my agency’s name. (https://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?NoticeID=54031&print+yes)

Unauthorized use of photographs of people appearing without permission online is another growing category of Orphan Works. The Mattes use of photos was to create an art show. Some people use images to perpetrate a hoax as is the case of with the Torrance, California, woman rocketshipped in to a media mess when her photo was caught up in the Internet dating site hoax perpetrated on the football player, Manti Te’o. “Lennay Kekua”, Te’o’s ‘girlfriend’ was posted on line by a man punking Te’o with the unsuspecting woman’s photo. Online investigative magazine Deadspin, did due diligence to locate “Lennay Kekua.” “Lennay Kekua” was a fake online persona. Social networking sites- Facebook, Twitter, etc.- ringtones, mobile product- are cluttered with so many unauthorized uses of images of people, some famous, some not. Owners of Orphan Works can be found if someone wants to locate them even on Twitter. Twitter resorted to labeling REAL name/image owners suggested friendship with a now identifiable little blue box, checked, to indicate, this is the real person not a poser. Politicians photos are regularly removed from websites and news stories then reposted in to rude stories, or with the photos altered with ridiculing statements or imagery – dunce caps, clown paint, compromising shots, etc.

Orphan Works are also created from images harvested by internet crawlers. The mission of the Internet crawler it is to bring back images that are bundled then sold, both domestically and internationally, for example for use in online dating websites. One such case, involves a uniformed soldier in a photo found posted on dating websites PlentyofFish.com and True.com under the photo banner, "Military Man Searching for Love.” The man in the photo, Army lieutenant Peter Burks, wasn’t looking for love. Peter was survived by a grieving fiancé. Burks photo was taken days before being killed in Baghdad Iraq in 2007 according to a lawsuit filed by his parents. Peter’s photo was stolen off a website, the “Unsung Hero Fund,” set up in his memory to provide supplies to troops in war zones, then used without Peter’s name on the dating site where a friend spotted Peter. Peter’s parents have control over his image. Burks' parents never authorized his photos be used to endorse these dating sites. The Burks’ attorney filed for financial damages.

Peter Burk’s parents filed suit over unauthorized use of the one photo of their son used on the dating websites. Peter being a hero, makes the case more attractive to counsel. Lawyers don’t take, as quickly, cases like that of the American family whose photo was used without their knowledge on a high end grocery storefront ad in the Czech Republic http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/80662605/

Fighting the case would be too expensive for the potential outcome judgment that might never be collected, being in a foreign country.

The news industry is starting to fight back installing pay walls for organizations or for customers. There is no word if AP, Associated Press took action against former Speaker of the House Pelosi altering an AP photo by adding in to the Women of Congress picture, missing members. There is no word if Paris Hilton or Hasbro took steps against the former Speaker for her use of Paris’ and Hasbro’s Monopoly Man images in a Press Release from Pelosi’s office. The images were used without attribution. BING IMAGES has multiples of the Monopoly Man in BING’s online gallery. Makers of the original Monopoly, Hasbro, do challenge unauthorized use of their copyright. Hasbro sued Ghettopoly creator, David Chang, alleging trademark and copyright violation. Perez Hilton http://www.bloggersblog.com/blog.1120063 was pursued by photo agencies who unified to sue Hilton for unauthorized use of their photographers photos. Perez Hilton eventually paid for his unauthorized use of artistic works transgressions. Hilton, then turned around creating, ironically, an aggressive CONDITIONS OF USE to protect literary and artistic works appearing on his website. www.perezhilton.com/conditions-of-usehttp://www.bing.com/search?q=perez+hilton&src=IE-SearchBox&FORM=IE8SRC http://perezhilton.com/conditions-of-use/

Technology is hundreds of steps ahead of IP owners. Two dimensional Intellectual property - stories, photos, recordings, art- are removed from websites by data crawlers, given to bundlers, some locally located, some overseas, few with brick addresses or phone numbers or other ways to track the thieves down and hold them accountable for IP theft. Technology continues to advance programming for ways to enter websites without authorization to remove, not only the Intellectual property but to scrub identifiable copyright markings off the literary or artistic work, making the literary or artistic piece in to an Orphan Work faster than owners can keep up.

Databots have created a tsunami of IP theft. Databots crawl behind the scenes, invisible, gathering up the Intellectual Property they were sent to bring back to their ‘masters.’ Search engines Bing, Yahoo and Google traffic stolen Intellectual property, hosting galleries filled with unauthorized images taken from the Internet, without permission of the IP owner. Databots can be considered the Technological version of Human Trafficking. People, their photos and intellectual property, are bought and sold and bundled on the Internet. The search engines, then put the Intellectual Property, without authorization, into public domain where the literary or artistic works- ranging from handbooks on How To Make A Bomb to my photos - are posted for public access, unable to be erased.

What is the difference between what a hacker does and what search engines Google and Microsoft and Yahoo are doing. It is so much easier to steal off the Internet than from inside a store. Digital plundering and shoplifting largely go unpunished. Both hackers and Search Engines enter personal websites and blogs, removing data they profit from. Do we really believe when overseas computer techs telling us they go into our computers and ONLY look at the computer guts for the purpose of addressing a software issue. Well, if you do I have a bridge you might consider.

Google and Microsoft and Yahoo are disseminating. without authorization, my industry’s Intellectual Property files with others who do not have authorization to use my Literary and Artistic artworks. Dotcom went to jail for files sharing. Google, Microsoft and Yahoo don’t go to jail for doing the same. They don’t pay fines. They allege Fair Use. What they are doing is Unfair Use.

STEP 3Click a ‘thumbnail’. A thumbnail is the small ‘thumb size’ images horizontally and vertically across and down the Internet page.

STEP 4Put the cursor (the little hand icon) on the image you select. Left CLICK then drag the image off the web page to your desktop. You have now just violated my copyright and owe me money for unauthorized use of my image protected under the Berne Convention. If you noticed, between the left CLICK and drag, a small box popped up indicating the site my photo appeared on and was removed from to appear as an Unidentified image in the Bing, Yahoo or Google gallery.

STEP 5Click my image that now sits on your desktop. The information identifying my photo as belonging to me has been removed. In the case of my David Petraeus photo, my details and my agency’s details have been replaced with “345DD59892C0DDBCBDCAC1696B689_h231_w308_m5_clJtLUppu[1]” My photo of David Petraeus, a hot ticket item when his affair was revealed, is officially an Orphan Work. I am here. The photo of David is mine. My photo is not Orphaned. My photo has been kidnapped. It has been trafficked across state lines and internationally. Once upon a time, similar behaviours performed across phone lines, I believe was answerable under the RICO act. What is this theft going to be answerable under on Google Fibers? (https://fiber.google.com/about) Or didn’t Google tell you this Copyright Intervention was coming down their pipelines in Congress’ annual meeting with legislators.

The conversation of commercial versus non commercial or non profit use of Orphan works is moot. An image belongs to its creator. End of conversation. All rights to the image belong to its creator unless parceled out under terms of a license agreement. Not the other way around. No. It is not an issue of use first then pay as happened with Boston graffiti artist Shepherd Fairey’s iconic Obama “Hope” poster.

Pop culture artist, Shepherd Fairey, famous for his Obama HOPE painting, inauguration 2008, said his painting was copied from an image of Senator Obama, Fairey found on BING’s Image Gallery. (www.bing.com/search?q=shepherd+fairey&src=IE-SearchBox&FORM=IE8SRC) The photo of Obama Fairey used, for the painting reference, was taken at the National Press Club, by AP for-hire photographer Manny Garcia. AP said it owned the copyright to the photograph, sued, seeking credit and compensation. Associated Press Terms of Use state “All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, reqritten or redistributed…..” Former speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s digitally altered absent congresswomen into AP’s photo of Women of Congress. (www.ap.org/products-services/new-media) Paul Colford, AP’s media relations contact had made this statement when addressing Shepherd Fairey’s use of an AP photo for his Obama ‘Hope’ poster, "AP safeguards its assets….” Former Speaker Pelosi had used images of Paris Hilton and Milton Bradley to illustrate wealthy in a press release. Paris Hilton’s photographer was not credited. Hasbro was not named as owner of the Monopoly Millionaire. None of these images were Orphan Works.

Newspapers are taking their stand, charging websites that link to its articles. The NNI, National Newspapers of Ireland said “the display and transmission of links does constitute an infringement of copyright under current Irish law.” (www.france24.com/en/prints/5381923?print=now) Other publications have set up paywalls.

The greatest problem facing the creative community is a generation that believes the Internet should be free- what is yours is mine. Google, Yahoo, Microsoft’s

IMAGES and BING further facilitate literary or artistic works being published without copyright notices or credit or authorship. Google, Creative Commons and University Libraries want to give away what isn’t theirs from their forum, profiting

from other people’s free stuff, at the same time. The argument of Safe Harbor is put forth. Safe Harbor offers protections for museums, archives, universities, and other users acting for cultural or educational purposes. Nothing precludes BING IMAGES from calling itself a library or a museum or a gallery or prevents a private individual, who collects movies they have downloaded from calling themselves a library. After all, if bloggers, nowadays, can call themselves media then a Search Engine harvesting Intellectual Property of literary and artistic work will be bold enough to call itself a library.

When I read the Congressional Committee has been briefed, for years, by technological companies, my thought was the Copyright Office and Congressional committee are too aware of technological turbulence ahead for image owners along with continuing projected loss of control over their literary and artistic works. After all, at the Congressional Committee meeting, the technological companies have been “highlighting, image recognition, fingerprinting, watermarking, audio recognition, and/or licensing features and discussed their efforts to develop business models and standards including database control, security, population fees and allocation of user fees or subscriptions,” co-joined with the ‘let’s publish everyone’s ideas for public access’ could make the Copyright Office, complicit in trying to steal copyright ownership from copyright owners who did not pay the US government a fee for the IP to be part of a public database.

There is less of an excuse today than ever before for anyone to claim a copyrighted work is an Orphan Work. By definition, an Orphan Work is a Copyrighted work “whose owner is impossible to identify or contact to request permission from the copyright owner to use.” Public libraries are complaining they cannot digitally distribute orphaned books without risking being fined up to $150,000 if the owner of the literary or artistic work were to come forward. Sites like ancestry.com have exponentially expanded opportunities to locate heirs or potential heirs to literary and artistic works. Some genealogical hobbyists trace their families as far back as to the days of the Knights of Templar. Some in people in France, trace their lines through the Davidica thread connecting them to Jesus. A headline ran in Drudge the other day, citing a woman is being sought to carry a Neanderthal cave man baby. Remember the cave man drawings, I wrote about at the beginning of my comment? If DNA can link that baby to that art….. There are tools for Image Recognition. There are also a boatload of lawyers who will be jumping on board that runaway train.

Google Labs ballsily promotes uses of Google Goggles for getting more information on “landmarks, album covers, books, works of art and restaurants.” http://www.google.com/mobile/goggles/#landmark Google Googles is a program that copies images, albeit without authorization of the copyright holder, in order to search and locate where the image/item came from. Google’s security released the statement, “Using our Services does not give you ownership of any intellectual property rights in our Services or the content you access. You may not use content from our Services unless you obtain permission from its owner or are otherwise permitted by law.” philosophy is “As a provider of software and services for many users, advertisers and publishers on the Internet, we recognize how important it is to help protect your privacy and security. We understand that secure products are instrumental in maintaining the trust you place in us and strive to create innovative products that both serve your needs and operate in your best interest.” http://www.google.com/intl/en-US/policies/terms/ Google’s caveat is “But that does not necessarily mean that we review content, so please don’t assume that we do.”

Google’s website say “The revenue we generate is derived from offering search technology to companies and from the sale of advertising displayed on our site and on other sites across the web. Hundreds of thousands of advertisers worldwide use AdWords to promote their products; hundreds of thousands of publishers take advantage of our AdSense program to deliver ads relevant to their site content. To ensure that we’re ultimately serving all our users (whether they are advertisers or not), we have a set of guiding principles for our advertising programs and practices…” Google is a business. Owners of literary and artistic works are in business, too.

Google, Bing and Yahoo are search engines trafficking other people’s intellectual property without authorization. That the Copyright Office has proposed creating a

similar searchable database in essence trafficking literary and artistic works entrusted to them for protection, is alarming. It is unconscionable to even entertain changing the Copyright playing field to remove the Copyright Office from being a depository fortress of Intellect .

In a matter of speaking, I am an Orphan Work. Pariah sites, like mylife.com and 123people.com, exist from feeding off my Literary and Artistic works on the internet. Sites like these, sites that create Carrie Devorah pages consisting of my personal information and Literary and Artistic works, have created Third Party Teasers, such as, ‘do you know Carrie Devorah,’ soliciting people to sign up for access and membership for their profit of (1) access and (2) advertising. I was not contacted for permission to participate nor asked permission for my data or Intellectual Properties to be used. The process of removing the abusing sites is extensive. For every such site taken down, another site pops up. The raping of our privacy is unfathomable.

The Congressional Committee office briefings, conducted by technological companies, goes back long enough to expect technological companies informed the Congressional Committee that sending literary works and artistic images through the Internet violates Copyright Law, in that every image filed electronically through the internet is copied then archived in the Search engine files where it is kept, responsive to subpoenas, possible to be hacked and/or be compromised. Copying of a literary and artistic work without permission of the owner is unauthorized use of a copyright. The Republican Study Committee paper pulled from the Internet sheds insight into their failed overview of Copyright issues especially as the issue apply to literary and artistic works including photography. http://futureofmusic.org/blog/2012/11/19/republican-study-committee-issues-and-retracts-copyright-reform-brief

Naomi Korn, author of the UK JISC Collections Trust study, “In from the Cold: An assessment of the scope of ‘Orphan Works’, http://www.jisc.ac.uk/news/stories/2009/06/podcast81infromthecold.aspx , speaking for the JISC and The Collections Trust says “Many orphan works, like documentary photographs and sound recordings are of low commercial value but of high cultural and historic importance.” Korn expressed, “there is a need to effectively engage with the issues of potential for legislative change to improve policy alignment in collaboration with the Creative Industries.” Korn fails to mention which creative industries policy alignment should improve collaboration with- the industries trying to preserve what is their copyright, or the industries trying to profit from them.

Senator Harry Reid stressed ‘counterfeiting and piracy are serious problems that hurt major industries, including the movie industry, which supports 2.2 million jobs alone.’ Lets get real about piracy. It is theft. Piracy is a one size fits all

problem legislators don’t see that way because legislators are too busy parsing the copyright law in an effort to accommodate constituents in music, broadcast, dance, art or photography. Theft or Piracy in the movie industry cost over

370,000 jobs a year. Piracy in the music industry cost over $1.6 billion. Takedown operations do result in criminal charges. Selling stolen videos is a misdemeanor for blockbuster movies released to the street. What is the

misdemeanor for stealing my photos? Where are the Feds when thousands of uses of my photos are all over the internet? Where are the Feds when fellow published news photographer Senator Patrick Leahy’s photos are removed from authorized used then distributed all over the Internet by unauthorized users and displayed without authorization in Search Engine giants Microsoft BING, Yahoo and Google Galleries? Better question, is their unauthorized use of a Senator’s property answerable to a higher charge? That said, when it all comes down to it is my naked lens or my visionary literary and artistic works any less valuable than Pat my colleagues?

I am not a major billion dollar industry. I am just an independent former news photographer who covered the White House and the Hill who was one of theearlier members in art merchandising who knows the value of one photograph, the value of one piece of art or one story. I can look you in the eye and tell you emphatically my experience with unauthorized use of my photos disguised to look as Orphan Works. The theft of my Intellectual Property, my images, prevents me from earning an income from my photos. Loss of profits from photos stolen and used without authority, domestically and internationally is hurting my industry’s agents and agencies hurting their ability to make livings, too. The defense and pursuit of unauthorized use of images, for them, let alone for me, is costly, overwhelming and daunting.

My images are my employees. My images work for me. Each time they get used, I get paid. Each time my photo was used without my authorization, I did not get paid. Every image of mine put into a BING or GOOGLE or YAHOO gallery is an image that had no more ability to perform and earn money for me. The BING or GOOGLE or YAHOO galleries give my photos away for free. The value of an author of a copyright as perception- by attorneys, regulators and policy wonks. In your eyes, a photo, by me, isn’t perceived as being as valued as a photo taken by Annie Leibovitz. Why not? Annie told me I had her dream opportunity, photographing South Lawn White House departures and arrivals. My history of in commerce speaks for itself but on first blush- Annie’s name has “show time” value. To me, my photos are as valuable as Annie Leibovitz’s. My photos are worker bees.

Stop parsing an already too small size pie. Rather than teaching people it is ok to steal by degrees or with government oversight, maybe we aught to go back to our founding principles, the ten… Thou Shalt Not Steal and teach people to innovate, be respectful of what others do. Challenge them to do better. The Founding Fathers taught us, we must, as a country have principles to build with that it is our job to teach the next generation that greed is criminal. Ideas are the foundation upon which our economy is based. As for the idea of implementing or legislating or regulating this notion called Orphan Works? What really is Orphan Works other than a license to steal.

The Copyright Office hasn’t acknowledged the reality of pursuing Copyright ownership abuse lies in the ability to secure representation for litigation. Attorneys don’t take on cases of photographers from Kalamazoo whose photo was used without permission, for example, on a cookie tin. The lawyers tell compromised copyright owners, it will be challenging to expect any lawyer to take on such a case with so little expected return, the case would involve too much work, and specialty, for so little projected financial return.

It is my opinion the Copyright Office has lost sight of its mission which, on government time is to protect not profit, as with the case of Orphan Works, profit even more as cash cow agency. There are countless people who have paid into the dream of Copyright protection. What good is protection if you don’t give us a simplified legal redress that doesn’t get pushed up into a big expense needing

experts and so on. It is simple. Did you take this photo? Yes. Can you prove it? Yes? Is that your name in the news paper under the photo? Yes. You- same questions. No? A license agreement? Emails? Anything? No! Pay the lady!

It is not up to the Copyright Office to decide who benefits from the use of footage, manuscripts, images, sound recording by persons other than its creator.You need to do your job and protect owners of literary and artistic works whether they pay for a filed copyright or not. Your job is to tell the public, the Copyright Office is the protector of literary and artistic works, and that it is not kosher to use

OTHER PEOPLES LITERARY AND ARTISTIC WORKS WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION. The role of the Copyright Office is not to protect people frombeing accused of stealing if they take something that is not theirs. The role of the copyright office is NOT to facilitate groups like Wikileaks, Anonymous and revenge hackers who remove, in their cases, sensitive documents they then release to the public- as copyrighted or Orphaned Works. The Copyright office’s role in Copyright oversight, is to protect creative expression, to protect owners images so do your job. Stop worrying how to profit with thieves.

Attempting to protect IP today is a losing venture. The honor system failed affirming there is no honor amongst thieves. The Internet has become a license to steal, I mean pirate. I am not collecting royalty income from unauthorized use of my literary and artistic works stolen by and through search engines. Although theft of literary and artistic works most probably eclipses piracy in the movie industry, there appears to be a standard that it is ok to steal photos and sketches, art and stories from entrepreneurs like me. Here and now, I am letting you the Copyright Office know, you do NOT have my permission to put online any of my images I entrusted to you the United States Copyright Office and the United States government. “Copyright law” as the office posted online may be “the engine of free expression in our society and a major building block of the U.S. economy” but you do not have the right to do anything with my images. “KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF MY COPYRIGHT!!!” http://www.copyright.gov/about.html

Years ago I heard JC Watts tell the story of his father rocking his rocking chair, on the house porch, watching JC and his college friends. After listening for a while, JC’s dad stopped rocking his chair. JC and his friends wondered if Dad was ok. Dad said he wasn’t sure because he was wondering, after what he was listening in on, how college could have made JC and his friends so stupid, unlearning their common sense.

I read through the history of Orphan Works and the Copyright Office and I have to wonder the same. Whatever happened to your common sense. Whatever happened to your upholding Copyright law by not diluting it with Orphan Works. My redress is simple. My comment posted here inspired me to use my IP, my filed Comment, as a starting point for a book I am calling KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF MY COPYRIGHT!!! With all the abuse of the Internet, it does offer opportunity through sites like KICKSTARTER where I am Crowd Funding my project. My goal is not to change the world. My goal is to provide for my world, for my descendants, my sons and their sons and their sons and so forth, for my generations to come.

DOES SIZE MATTER :ADVICE FOR THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS ON ARTISTS & SENSITIVE PEOPLE (c) Carrie Devorah :

Congress requested the U.S. Copyright Office undertake a study assessing if and how “the current legal system hinders or prevents copyright owners from pursuing copyright infringement claims that have a relatively small economic value (“small copyright claims”).”

The premise falters here. There is no Small Claim to an artist, photographer or writer who infuses their soul into their creations, their Intellectual Property, that is then taken, plagiarized, stolen online or offline then sent forth en masse, without the Copyright Owners authorization, to recipients unknown. To be clear, having learned that hearing rooms are packed with wonks and lobbyists pushing policy for paychecks, it is important for me to state my Comments reflect the individual ‘artist’ who seems to be voiceless in prior Copyright proceedings. For the here and now, I am not talking for corporations. I am talking for art school students at my Alma Mater Pratt Institute www.pratt.edu, students across town at the Corcoran (www.corcoran.org), fashion hopefuls nurtured by the Greater Washington Fashion Incubator www.gwfcc.org . Not the singer, not the film actor but the people who craft words and images that archive culture. The perceived, lowly starving artist who sends in lots of sketches to sell one; the starving writer who pitches stories then sees their pitch appear under someone else’s byline; the photographer who gives the free photo he’s asked for thinking it’s a loss leader- a freebie that leads to business.

I am the reality check to all the prior testimony that didn’t adress the citizen building a business at their kitchen table, staying up into the wee hours long after the kids go to sleep. Maybe one day, that singular citizen will become the corporation feeding a thousand. I am talking for the talented “small” person, the brain food of American innovation. I am making it clear that decisions Congress makes after hearing policy pushed by wonks on salary, lobbyists on retainer, people pushing for grants with rants, impacts my peer group- the artist, a single mom raising children on her own or a homeless man who takes that ONE photo of, lets say a Congressman in a compromising clinch that TMZ is willing to pay big $ lifting that homeless man off the street and off the dole.

This is big for Congress to understand. To the aforementioned people, there is no small economic value. Every dime counts when it comes to putting food on their family table and keeping their home lights on. Wifi is accessed for free by squatting outside McDonalds or Dunkin Donuts. Starbucks pulled their plug learning that cyber squatters, on a 1 cup or refillable free water diet, were hogging paying customer seats. http://eater.com/archives/2011/08/03/ny-starbucks-covers-outlets-cuts-off-wifi-squatters.php No, Congress should NOT now legislate that Starbucks rescind their decision. Congress has to focus on ways IP owners will get paid for Unauthorized Use of their IP, understanding here is no compensation for being violated, stolen from, artists struggle to comprehend. Some recover from. Some never recover. Some give up.

So this topic isn’t about Small Claims. This is huge.

Every so often a firm willing to help artists pro-bono, reaches out like Bruce Springsteen did in that iconic commercial, pulling wide eyed Courtney Cox up from the audience of thousands, on to the stage beside him. These moments of pro-bono opportunity are few and far between. There aren’t enough attorneys eager to fight the battle for every IP owner’s needs posted to Legal List Serves like Washington Association Of Lawyers For The Arts (www.waladc.org). The fight can be time consuming and expensive. There weren’t enough of these Legal Angels before the Internet exponentially exploded Intellectual Property theft. Now? There are even less. The Solomonesque questions are (i) how much is the Unauthorized Use of Copyright worth and (ii) where does the ripped off artist take the thief to duke this out- Small Claims Court or Higher Court, noting, ultimately, everyone eventually answers to the Higher Authority in the Moral Court. FPG Int'l v. Newsday, Inc. had the blush of being a Small Claims Court case with a big settlement. FPG’s standard license fee is $2,000. Newsday payout to FPG $20,000.

There is an answer. It isn’t their livelihood that Congressmen and Senators are debating. It isn’t professions they necessarily ‘get’ or respect, less so in the age of technology with Congressional interns or staffers with iPhones and iPads stepping in to the role of traditional media, blurried, mind you. The rampant rise of the Internet and Freedom To Insult Or Stalk For Gotcha Moments, isn’t the fault of the 2D IP community. Congress did this to themselves deciding ‘who should live and who should die’ in the worlds of print & ink, that is, by granting technological giants ways forward without realizing the cost- shall we say text messages and emails- Anthony Weinter, David Petraeus. Let’s be honest- the Internet has honed a new level of disrespect in what used to be time honored crafts. The Internet has created home spun journos-in-their-own-mind who viciously attack with profanity or re work photos into offensive mocking diatribes, photos often used without authorization of the Copyright Owner, without concern of impact on the very people who protect even this whacked out interpretation of Freedom of Speech, Members of Congress whose families are expected to absorb these attack hits with grace. Politicians have a hard time being able to filter good-real-credentialed-mediaites from bad-wannabe-determined-to-twist words or plant bugs in offices abcnews.go.com/Politics/sen-mitch-mcconnell-bugged-strategizing-ashley-judd/story?id=18914051#.UWV4nzdtaCk . The 2D IP community whispers if this was Congress’s livelihood being strangled or the livelihood of a “whale” campaign backer, family member or other, or Beyonce http://www.mediatakeout.com/21158/explosive_ne-yo_may_sue_beyonce_over_irreplaceable_royalties.html , effecting IPO Small Claims courts for 2D IP owners, would have been resolved long before the Senate’s and House’s last Congressional break could be threatened.

Politicians scurry back and forth so fast enroute to and from voting that so much of the artwork in the Capitol buildings have become a blur, short of being backdrops for legislative photo ops and press conferences, when all these famous IP, Intellectual Property’s that should be part of Congress Intellectual Property conversation. Staffers tours to constituents should not only be discussing Faith and the Founding Fathers, but also share the Intellectual Property on these walls, inspires generations of Legislators and generations to become Legislators. The Architect of the Capitol, the Honorable Stephen T. Ayers, FAIA, LEED AP, recognizes he is the gatekeeper for the Capitol’s IP, Intellectual Property. The AOC’s webmaster posted to Architect’s website http://www.aoc.gov/capitol-hill/art the Guidelines for restricted use of Architect of the Capitol photographs. The Guidelines state, “Image Use - Images on the Architect of the Capitol Web site can be downloaded in high-resolution through the AOC Flickr page. These images are in the public domain and, unless otherwise noted, may be used without permission for educational, scholarly, or personal (i.e., nonpromotional, nonadvertising) purposes. When any of these images is used in print or electronic publications, the photographic credit line should read “Architect of the Capitol.” If an image requires additional use permission, a note to that effect appears on the relevant download page. These images may not be used in any way that would imply endorsement by the Architect of the Capitol or the United States Congress of a product, service, or point of view. Photographs from the records of the Architect of the Capitol may be used for scholarly or educational purposes; they are not made available for promotional or advertising purposes.” And “The images and video by the Architect of the Capitol are in the public domain and, unless otherwise noted, may be used without permission for educational, scholarly, or personal (i.e., non-promotional, non-advertising) purposes….. A detail or cropped image may not be used in a publication unless (a) it is clearly identified as a detail or cropped version of the larger work and (b) the full image appears elsewhere in the publication….. When any image or video is used, the photographic credit line should read “Architect of the Capitol.” If an image or video requires additional use permission, a note to that effect appears on the relevant download page. These images and videos may not be used in any way that would imply endorsement by the Architect of the Capitol or the United States Congress of a product, service or point of view.” (www.aoc.gov/image-gallery

Somewhere in Brooklyn is a turnip truck under a bridge waiting to be sold.

Back to the question, does size matter? Ask Congress. Where does Congress go to adress all the Unauthorized Uses of their Intellectual Property? SCOTUS? Federal? District? Small Claims…… The White House has their answer…. “In accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and other applicable law, we have adopted a policy of terminating, in appropriate circumstances and at our sole discretion, subscribers or account holders who are deemed to be repeat infringers…” http://www.whitehouse.gov/copyright

Everyday Brumidis bring beauty to Congress’ otherwise challenging world. There are the artists who design gift items sold in Congressional gift shops; authors whose books tell histories about politicians campaigns cycle in and out of Congress some of whom may have even legislated over this policy in hearings. There are the journos recording bytes of what was said in pressers or on hot mics. There are the photographers who crawl in Hearing Room wells snapping photos that cycle long after the politician is gone home or to the Big Capitol in the Sky. One never really sees a Congressman’s staff touring visitors past their winning students IP, Intellectual Property, artworks on display in the annual State Student Art Competition that graces the long walkway from Capitol to House www.house.gov/content/educate/​art_​competition . They should. These State Student Winners are future Intellectual Property constituents, artists, writers and photographers beneath the Congressional radar, who want to create with abandon their Intellectual Property, their IP. Let Congress tell them that making a living from their talent is a losing race in our rampant technologically Free Internet world.

It seems the President and Legislators respond to a “DO IT FOR THE KIDS” mantra. Do it for the kids. Create an affordable IPO Small Claims Court solution so these State Winning Youth can tell their IP thief, “Congress FINALLY passed this THOU SHALT NOT STEAL Small Claims Court/ mediation/ affordable forum law. Meet you in IPO Court!”

It has been almost eight years since 2006 http://www.asmp.org/pdfs/alternatives_COstmt.pdf.

Granted, Rome wasn’t built in day but there are Small Claims Court models that have been effected in other parts of the world since. 2012, the Brits set up their IPO Small Claims Court system http://www.ipo.gov.uk/about/press/press-release/press-release-2012/press-release-20121001.htm With all else that America copies from Europe- boybands, Mr. Bean, Benny Hill, and the Beatles- why not copy this? The same technology that has exponentially massed online IP thefts is the GO-TO resource for conducting 24/7 global conversation feed Focus Groups. Go to Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest and Linkedin and ask for their input. With all these resources, how in Heavens name can Small Claims still be a stalled conversation before Congress? It beggars the mind.

You know, there is a basic tenet, in business, when an employee doesn’t perform- OUT. Cut their email accounts. Clear their rolodexes. Remove pertinent papers. Box their plant. Show them the door. Politics talent is to recycle politicians into Lobbyists who bring titles to a table, a political Show Horse of sorts, trotted out for name and gain, more often than substance. Sometimes, the “Former” has little more to offer other than punditing and postulating on themes he or she failed to accomplish in Congress. In art school, we put it differently, “Them’s that can DO, them’s that cant Teach.”The last thing the IP, Intellectual Property community needs is yet another retired opining voice out there. We need doers not visionaries. We need people who are plowhorse. They will put their noses to the grindstone and knock this concept out in weeks.

The answer to motivate resolution of this eight year plus Small Claims Court conversation is called a paycheck. While some IP creators are staff hence salaried with no ownership of IP created on the job, there are IP creators who are Independent aka Freelance. Independents /Freelancers gamble on their talents. While some work on fees, others are paid royalties based on performance of their Intellectual Property sales. An example of independent Royalty Paid Artists include Andy Warhol (www.warhol.org), Thomas Kincaid en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kinkade, Carrie Devorah (www.godinthetemplesofgoverment.com) and Keith Haring bing.com/imageshttp://www.bing.com/images/search?q=keith+haring&qpvt=keith+haring&FORM=IGREIntellectual Property creators and their licensing agents know that no sales of the creative’s Intellectual Property = (equals) no income, no living, a concept that, if Congress and the Register Of Copyrights worked under, would motivate them to “get the remedies done.”

Take a moment, click on the Keith Haring link. Click here http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=carrie+devorah+bing&FORM=HDRSC2

Continue.

Enlarge individual images in BING’s Gallery credited to Haring. Note, in the signature below the picture that the images come from different sources. Now, pull an image, any image from BING’s “Keith Haring” gallery on to your desktop. Pull another image. And another image. And another. You have now just successfully stolen Haring’s artworks, royalties from which fund AIDS research around the world. You are now liable to be sued. Serious. Without a signed license agreement, each one of those Keith Haring images in Bings Gallery is being used without Authorization. Each one of those images is a Small Claims Court/Mediation/Affordable Forum suit waiting to happen. So should these secondary infringement IPO Small Claims suits brought about by BING, the direct infringer, be addressed and/or litigated one at a time? I have successfully illustrated to you how simple it is to be complicit in Stolen Property with Internet Search Engine BING’s Unauthorized Use of Copyrighted Images.

Simple as that.

So the problem Congress must evaluate just isn’t what is happening on the Sue-r end but also what is happening on the Sue-ee end. Hogwash? No. Congress facilitated the Search Engines thefts of other people’s properties. Congress must adress this to mitigate the ease of Intellectual Property theft along with providing an IPO Small Claims Court forum. Maybe employ the White House strategy… TERMINATE , “terminating, in appropriate circumstances and at our sole discretion, subscribers or account holders who are deemed to be repeat infringers…” http://www.whitehouse.gov/copyright

There is a rub with BING’s Unauthorized Use of Warhol, Haring and Kinkade that will be adressed later, after posing the age old question “Does Size matter?” No. Ask a woman. Theft is theft whether it’s one piece or ten. She doesn’t care if it was a small diamond of a big diamond, a diamond is a diamond. A single image can be a diamond in the rough, a golden ticket to retirement as illustrated with

the homeless man and compromising photo example. At hand, here, is where to adjudicate a claim lawyers don’t see value in representing and how to collect a Court award for Intellectual Property stolen in a Virtual World. Congress isn’t yet adjudicating in Bitcoins. Bitcoins is a virtual, alternative currency. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin Try collecting dollars from a Virtual company, an Anonymous Avatar on line or a shell corporation. Same diff’.

And then there is that reality Congress doesn’t factor in to legislation, the “what happens when….”

“Small” is in the eyes of an attorney who, measuring effort vs return, turns a legitimate claim down because he or she will lose money taking the case. Lawyers are business people with overhead, dependents and law school debt that governs their decision evaluation of cases they take on. Some attorneys are empathetic Legal Angels who take Pro-Bono work seriously or as loss leaders into a new community of potential. Denial of representation does not mean there isn’t merit to an IP owner’s issue. But, many Intellectual Property creators are Left Brained People who will take denial of representation personally and hard, stressing more over finding an attorney under the Sword of Democles statute of limitations they must be mindful of.

A responsible lawyer communicates to a potential client- pro bono or paying- the time invested of your life into pursuing this matter is time you can move forward from, into time spent creating more work. The lawyer coaches ‘is it really money that you want or is it an apology or to make a difference or if the conversation could be brokered (seeing they already like your work) is there interest in exploring a working relationship. And then there is the real reality- sue them and there is the risk they will counter sue escalating this matter into a higher court dragging things out over time. Know that while Small Claims Courts cap out at “X” amount depending on the jurisdiction, there is nothing barring the Defendant from punting the matter up into Municipal Court where greater costs are incurred under a different set of rules with higher punitives and costs.’ Put THAT disclaimer before an owner of an Abused Copyright, watch the thought process change. The Copyright owner might want a face to face meeting and an apology and the ability to express their feelings (yes, artists enter a room their innocence on their face and their heart on their shirtsleeve.)

This is called Mediation.

Mediation excels ONLY when non-lawyers facilitate the meeting, in that lawyers, got to love them, think law first and resolution second or as a gateway to data gathering that lawyers are told not to do but do anyways. Ask a lawyer a question, they cite case law. Ask a Mediator/Artist the same question, they applaud participation, huggers by Art Heart. The Disciple of Mediation is Beverly Hill’s Burton Levy who commands mediations, backyard, poolside with lemonade and cookies (rumored), point being Levy brings people together in an environment where there is NOTHING IN BETWEEN THEM, no table separating them, a relaxed environment people ‘chill’ into and open up when they talk. Levy’s success rate, is somewhere up there in the 200% rate, an idea to introduce to Art School and Law School students graduating, as author Stephen Harper describes, “with Mortgages and no house.” Include Mediation Clinics in a comfortable IP forum- an art college, a gallery, ANYWHERE but in a court setting which is, lets be real, is intimidating and adversarial from the Get Go. Keep it “chill” the Burton Levy way- no tables in between people- coffee tables to the side a la Starbucks style. No joking. These IPO Small Claims Mediation Labs can be underwritten by corporate sponsors. Check out Googles campus. Think Resolution. Think Triage….. (www.youtube.com/watch?v=srqUfQpIVb0)

“How Copyright owners have handled small Copyright Claims and the obstacles they have encountered” is a broad stroke of a brush, so to speak. There is a Copyright holder who launched a company with a mouse, not a computer mouse, at that. This mouse was called Mortimer. There’s Jim Davis who sketched Garfield on a napkin, in pencil, as legend goes. Then there’s the Copyright holder who exhibited Turtleneck Kids at a local artisan’s show. A marketing genius, perusing craft fairs for inspiration, transformed the doll into a mega hit garden variety concept. The small time Turtleneck Kids Copyright holder wasn’t as adept with IP protection as was the Mouse’s corporate legal teams issuing ‘cease and desists’ when the Mouse’s copyright infraction was noticed. Don’t under estimate the Mouse. Mortimer aka Mickey became a behemoth. How? By protecting Walt’s Intellectual Property ownership from Unauthorized Use. The Turtleneck Kid granny did not.

Copyright gives the owner the right to decide who gets to use their work, who doesn’t, who profits from it and how, and other rights decision, too. Copyright is Intellectual Property - patents, trademarks, trade secrets, authors rights, related rights, moral rights, utility model and geographical indications, including Sui Generis, Latin for "of its own kind/genus", "unique in its characteristics.” "The right to copy", copyright, is a legal concept giving the creator of an original work exclusive rights to their IP for a limited time which on its nose is wrong.

What gives anyone the right to tell an artist they owned their IP too long, so now other people should have the right to own it too. Does that mean that family heirlooms are put curbside for others to take, lifetime +70? Does that mean that the Thomas Jefferson’s Koran Former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi used to swear Keith Ellison into Congress with http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,233983,00.html has been in the Library of Congress too long, meaning that if someone walked out the door with it, they would not be guilty of theft? After all the LOC, had the Koran, too long. How about the liberal lawyer pushing for less copyright ownership time who didn’t like being told there was no argument with her theory of less copyright ownership and next month, will be her month for not keeping her salary that will go to someone else while she keeps working? She didn’t like that argument back. Guessing that if told, her son in her profile? He’s, what, 10? She’s had him too long, so next week, someone who doesn’t have a kid will come by to pick him up. Why not? If an IP owner can be told they lose their IP after a Congressionally determined statute, then what flies…. Why not lose kids and salaries, except that it dumb and that is the point. Confiscating people’s IP’s is dumb, too.

Not every artist becomes a Mickey or Garfield. Many dream of becoming licensing stars. Look at the Sunday paper comics to see how many artists put their heart into weekly columns. Few become Snoopy or Charlie Brown. Few youtube artists become breakout Biebers. The reality most can hope for is to pay their bills from doing what they love - write, draw, photograph- and that some person doesn’t make a living from Unauthorized Use of their IP. All well and good until reality hits that success breeds imitation, in the form of copycats and thieves. A “Colonel Sanders” protects rights to his Secret Spices with a legal team. A hope-to-be Colonel Sanders most often cannot, wanting the option of representing themselves in small claims court. Few remember, or even know, the first small claims court was created in Cleveland in 1913, court designed for people to manage their dispute themselves, long before the Internet threw a wrench in protecting IP from thieves.

The process isn’t complicated. Or is it?

An action is initiated in small claims court, when a plaintiff fills out a form they get from the local court administrator, filling in, correctly, the names and addresses of all defendants, describing the dispute then stating the amount of money involved. A filing fee is paid. A copy of the plaintiff's statement is properly served on the defendant so the action won’t be dismissed, either by mailing the summons to the defendant or having it served by a deputy sheriff or process server as required. If the defendant’s a corporation, the plaintiff checks with the office of the Secretary of State or corporate registration department for the proper address. A corporation must register the name and address where it can be served. Generally there’s no jury. The judge or judicial officer makes a decision at the end of the presentation of evidence. If successful? The plaintiff can recover money awarded and the filing fee from the defendant. The losing party can file an appeal.

End of story? No. Beginning of an real problem in an Internet World.

Where does one serve an online violator of Intellectual Property? How does one serve a person or entity without a physical adress or an adress within the discernable jurisdiction? Where does one send the Sheriff? To France, if it is yelster/123people.com getting served? Or Austria? Another of yelster’s named ‘residences.’ And is it even yelster.com who gets served. The website divulges that “123people is a product of the 123people Internetservices GmbH. 123people Internetservices GmbH was founded in 2007 by European IT incubator i5invest with initial funding from Austrian VC Gamma Capital Partners. The company is today based in Vienna, Austria. Since March 2010, 123people is part of the French Solocal Group. At the beginning of 2012 the 123people Internetservices GmbH renamed itself into yelster digital gmbh.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/123people

The sinking economy has created a “potential alternative to the current legal system that could better accommodate such claims” that can be ‘tweaked’ to creatively fill this need, doing so with potential impact on career and commerce- the marriage of law and art. The concept isn’t new.

Touro College Law School www.tourolaw.edu took students to Ward 9, in Katrina’s aftermath, to facilitate the backed up legal process moving forward. Students got College Credit. Residents got legal help. The law firm of Drinkle Biddle and Reath LLP works nationwide with “student groups at various law schools to provide mentoring and financial assistance.” The only thing DBR is missing is an insightful artist who designs worlds perfect for betterment of the IP creaive’s peer community. http://www.martindale.com/Drinker-Biddle-Reath-LLP/law-firm-300035-diversity.htm It isn’t a stretch of the imagination to effect the same marriage here- Law School Credit + Small Claims Court IPO, developing new scholastic expertise trainings for both Law and the Arts - IPO Law Facilitation studies for Left Brain IPO creators with Right Brain Function and for Right Brain Law Students in touch with their inner Left Brain self. Set this in an IPO Mediation Lab setting as described earlier….. a new education industry is born, make that two. Google “law school death watch” to find out what law schools are at risk for closing down.

Art schools are beginning to teach ‘a business class’ of sorts mitigating potential IPO litigations. Granted, there is a responsibility for the artist to take steps on their own. Most artists need prodding and coaching with business. Schools are supposed to prod. Congress and the Register of Copyrights can prod schools to come together- earning law schools students Class Credit while building a resume, building esteem and learning more about other worlds they might or might not intersect with but learn they love- architecture, fashion, multi media, etc. worlds that cross into many of the Crowdsourcing alternatives to funding that are gangbusters in these days and times. Law schools already have clinics for community issues like housing and immigration. Clinics addressing Intellectual Property is a viable consideration, too.

Being real, creatives are people who prefer communes to bottom lines. There is potential here to bring the two together, to build an industry that may be more meditative than litigious, focused on IP, ID and commerce. Ask an art school student the one class they wish they got before graduating into the real world, they answer ‘the business of the business.’ Ask a law school student that question, their answer is the same. Google “Arts Schools” and “failures to teach business.” Graduated lawyers and artists post to online message board, school did not prepare them for the real world. NPR’s Diane Rehm interviewed Steven Harper, author of “The Lawyer Bubble.” http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2013-04-04/steven-harper-lawyer-bubble Harper describes, the “mortgage but no house” debt excepting that lawyers ‘mortgages without a house’ is larger than most artists ‘mortgages without a house’ except when one considers that an Ivy league law school student steps into the working world with a potential 6 figure salary while the artist steps out into the real world where “artists are a dime a dozen.” There is no Small Claims, remember, just small beginnings. Along the line of Law School Clinics where students work alongside lawyers, school may be a place to begin here, too, brokering the field of manageable IPO Small Claims Court concept. Even before that, guidelines must be drafted to qualify what constitutes an IPO Small Claims Court Case versus what belongs in a higher court.

Anonymous Comments posted to www.quintcareers.com reflect the merit of marrying Arts & a skill in the first years of Law School and Arts Colleges to mitigate the “Mortgage with no house” debt Harper talked about to NPR- [A ] "I do not plan to go to grad school. The reason is simply because I find that I have learned more on my job in the last seven months than what I have learned in all my five years of education. I find that work is a bit different from school -- being able to do well in projects does not directly translate into success at work. The rules are different." [B ] "I found most of the courses that I have taken in the past to be very theoretical and not very realistic. My advice is to learn more from companies and take on projects in the industry that you want to get into." [C ] "I have had all the training, but cannot find a position in which I can use that knowledge." [D ] "You learn 10 percent at college and 90 percent in the work force." [ E ] "My education has no correlation to the work I am performing. I wish I had majored in something that is marketable and could enable me to find work that I enjoy." [ F ] "College is great times but not anywhere even close to the real world."

A recent online forum on an Art School Graduate page asked how many students were working in their major. Not many. The average was, a few decades back, that a projected 2% of a class would continue to make a living in their career of choice. The complaint being repeated decades after I graduated and went into business of Arts, still is schools did not teach the business of the business.

Schools do webinars, in these days of the internet but nothing beats a sit down class for Creative People on how to avoid a problem that might lead you into a court- confidentiality agreements, receipts for leaving items for review, confirming meetings and follow up communiqués on what was discussed and proposed. These tools won’t eliminate the need for small claims courts for some. These tools will mitigate the occurrences of Copyright holders going to court on easily addressed issues. Easily and addressed are an oxymoron when it comes to debating copyrights. Copyrights are ‘defined’ on 8 points- not by someone close to the art but by John Doe Public who should at a glance see what is ‘same/same’ or different, one conversation on copyright claims.

The premise that the “Copyright Act (the “Act”), 17 U.S.C. 101 et seq., protects a wide variety of works of authorship, ranging from individual articles or photographs that may not have a high commercial value to motion pictures worth hundreds of millions of dollars in the marketplace” is flawed in that, as at birth, all ideas start like babies, naked to the world, with no guarantee that the idea could not become a breakout star, as did The Cabbage Patch Kids or even Kim K who became a public name after her home made movie shot her to stardom after Mom-ager Kris Jenner jumped on top the media brouha. There is no predicting what might become big, through a ‘lightning strike’ or slam dunk marketing or even hard work. There was no predicting Maria Pallante would one day become Register of Copyrights or that any of the legislators would become what they did. All ideas are born equal. No guarantee ever that coal wont become a diamond or a quick sketch wont become a goldmine to its creator. So what is the process to determine an IP’s value to decide what venue to adjudicate in? That answer might come to kishkas, guts. Sometimes just, “ I am sorry.”

It has been interesting, as of late, observing wonks, lobbyists even lawyers addressing IP. Congressmen and Senators, breeds on to themselves, are saddled interpreting outreach to a community fronted with spokespeople. Here and now, there is a difference between IP creators and others.

Artists, if they are lucky to work within the discipline they trained in, are entrepreneurs of a unique sort whose minds never stop working. Intellectual Property creators live a reality the every-day-Joe-don’t-know. 9-5r’s, the nickname for people who go to a job, 5 days a week, 4 weeks a month and 12 months a year, do just that- same thing, different day. Artists are not one-trick, ponies. Know an artist? If they aren’t off on Cloud 9 when being spoken to, usually, something has caught their designing mind or distracted their attention resulting in a goldmine of potential- sketching thumbnails, making notations in book margins, magazine, pages, jacket flaps. Some have even been known to draw/write on their hand as not to lose thought. Who is to say anyone of those jottings is not potentially valuable to the artist OR to someone who sees the idea, then “borrows” it without compensating the Copyright Image creator. Remember Jim Davis sketched his first Garfield on a napkin.

IP creators are best compared to a woman with shoes in her closet. Never met a woman with just one pair. Never met an IP creator with just one idea. A creative person has ten solutions for every challenge put to them. And every idea out there is a potential IP stolen. Let’s say, the Intellectual Property creator submitted greeting card sketches to a company, through the United States Postal Service Certified Mail/ Return Receipt Requested. AND let’s say the AD, the art director, said no to all or yes to some sketches. AND let’s say the AD, left the company the IP owner submitted their concepts too. The Art Director takes the IP owners sketches with them to the AD’s new job or their own Startup. Let’s say the Copyright creator begins seeing their designs appearing, not in one place but in multiple places. In stores. On websites. On T-shirts, … and sues each one of the violators in IPO Small Claims Court or elsewhere for Unauthorized Use.

Courts were unable to process the amount of IPO claims pre-Internet. The courts are unable to process the amount of claims escalating post internet, in a viral world. Unauthorized Users have an air of entitlement. People are losing sense of boundaries. With hot issues pushing buttons on gun control, there is the growing concern of “psychological homelessness” trickle down incurred from technology has dumbed down people’s skills for resolution.

Sure a wronged person can sue BUT WHAT HAPPENS WHEN there are multiple legitimate wrongs, the person gets labeled in a bad way. How can a prolific IP owner, the Intellectual Property owner, protect their name while defending their Copyrights, each and every time another one of their idea babies, Intellectual Property’s, is stolen. What happens? They are labeled. Litigious.

So as you can see, IPO Small Claims Court for a person who designs prolifically and is distributed globally, doesn’t work. IPO Small Claims Court for prolific IP creators, is a disaster waiting to happen, unless, the Copyright holder is Disney defending Donald Duck. Disney would be considered good businessmen defending their Proprietary product. But if the IPO plaintiff is John Doe from up the block, the IPO plaintiff is saddled with a stigma, that defines them as Litigious. That they were the ones stolen from is ignored.

The potential price of a prolific IPO creator’s legal right for redress is slander. Libel travels with lightning speed on the Internet. Some people have the constitution to stand up to unkind labels. Some don’t. Reddit founder Aron Swartz committed suicide. en.bizinet.cz/article/​reddit-co-founder-commits-suicide-370749 . IPO Small Claims Court works if Congress writes into the law for IPO Small Claims Court, that being labeled “litigious” is wrong and punishable or, if done by Defendants’ attorney or Defendant on line, it is “bullying,”, since ‘slander’ and ‘libel’ seem to have fallen by the wayside when someone is being dissed, online.

The examples of Warhol, Haring and Kincade keep focus on the claims of Copyright Creators against Search Engines occupied with gathering, storing and disseminating IP, Intellectual Property, without authorization. If four Search Engines mount, without the Copyright Owner’s Authorization 4000+ copyrighted images, no less than 16000 Unauthorized Uses of the Copyrighted Image, which are then stripped of their Metadata by data bots hence converted into Orphan Works, which makes the Copyright Owner a cottage industry for a lawyer, legal team or, as stated in a video adress by Stavros Lambrinidis, able to pursue laws in existence on the ground http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaOKxM9uONM

Athens born attorney Stavros Lambrinidis, the EUSR, EU Special Representative For Human Rights, addressed TECH@STATE, by video link, March 2013. Lambrinidis, the former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Greece and a former Vice-President of the European Parliament, took office as EUSR, on September 1 2012. Stavros, Vice-President of the Parliament's Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee and, at one time, Chairman of the Committee for Human Rights in the Bar Association of Washington, DC, sees his role is “to enhance the effectiveness and visibility of EU human rights policy.” Lambrinidis said the “Internet opens the door for everyone to access private information in commerce and for criminals” reinforcing to “Deal with cyberspace as regular space- utilize the same laws in place as in cyberspace.” Lambrinidis made his point stating that on the internet ‘anyone can open private information… they should not be allowed to.’ IP in private places is being accessed by strangers for commerce.

This year is 2013.

The House of Representatives' Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property held a hearing in March 2006 to learn more about the problems faced by small copyright claimants (the “Small Claims Hearing”). It doesn’t take being a rocket scientist to realize SEVEN YEARS LATER, nothing has changed except for technology and the rapid fire theft of IP. The Internet, still seems a Wild West Without Legislation. Lambrinidis equivocation of law guidance on the Internet to to law guidance on the Terra Firma is the most sane thing a legislator has said in a long time.

The Copyright Office is doing too much “studying” and not enough “doing” if after all this time, definitive decisions have not been enacted. That, October 11, 2011, Chairman Lamar Smith nobly requested the Copyright Office to “undertake a study to assess: (1) The extent to which authors and other copyright owners are effectively prevented from seeking relief from infringements due to constraints in the current system; and (2) furnish specific recommendations, as appropriate, for changes in administrative, regulatory and statutory authority that will improve the adjudication of small copyright claims and thereby enable all copyright owners to more fully realize the promise of exclusive rights enshrined in our Constitution.” Chairman Smith’s assignment was not as expeditious as had he assigned staff to join as many LINKEDIN groups as possible to get him answers needed. FAST.

Here is a quick noodling on line produced for a potential Focus Group Community:

A quick search of “Intellectual Property” within LINKEDIN provided a result of 350,104 possible respondents on this issue; a search of “Artists” provided a result of 406,126; “photographer” provided a result of 564,260; “writer” provided a result of 1,209,539 possible respondents. For the fun of it “litigious” produced a result of 1,930 possible participants. Smith would then have a simple, bullet pointed questionnaire sent to the defined ‘sample’ Community with a ‘defined’ window of time within which to gather responses- weeks, possibly 3, maximum probably 6. A simultaneous similar fact finding questionnaire would be sent to colleges- “art school” provided a result of 1,094,158; “photography” provided 728,779; “writing school” provided 1,769,312; and “law school” provided 1,485,367. For the fun of it, “business school” provided 6,935,435. LINKEDIN provides an inexpensive route for Congress to go for answers. The numbers are out there for a consensus facilitating rapidly moving forward on Copyright and Commerce, the Courts and Business BUT if not done under the umbrella of the Registrar of Copyrights. Online search for the above data- 6 minutes. Copyright Office on the job? Seven years, almost eight years.

123people.com and spokeo.com created business models around ID theft- use of a person’s image and personal data bundled on to their sites. A perfect example is http://www.123people.com/e/carrie+devorah . The bundled images include images that are copyrighted. How does one fight 123people’s “awesome” team, and where? 123people’s “awesome team” including Gilles Clouet des Perusches (CEO) who “led [Kodak’s] European Mobile and Internet Division, Martin Stemeseder (CTO) in charge of Verisigns Chief Architect Digital Content and Media, Julien Auger-Ottavi (CFO) who started his career as Internet Strategy Consultant at Pages-Jaunes, and Alexandra Senoner (PIO) who was a consultant at a PR firm in Switzerland focusing on the Austrian market having worked for the Austrian parliament for over five years. Only in the course of the TEAM BRAG PAGE does one learn the 123people.com is ‘yelster digital’ and possibly based in Austria, quite an issue for a person whose ID’s been stolen and bundled for resale without permission by “Discover. Monitor. Protect- 123people.com.” Ironically, 123people.com advertises “Remove Unwanted Web Content” stating “With advanced services like Webcleaner, its now possible to have personal content deleted from external sources. The Social Network

Monitor is a powerful tool that can be used to protect not only your own Facebook profile but also those of your family?’

Is an IPO Small Claims Court in America, a venue for judicial action against 123people.com? No. The website says “123people is currently available across 12 countries in eight languages. It also provides people search capabilities on mobiles with an app for iphones and Android smartphones: USA, Canada, UK, Austria, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, France, Sweden and Poland,” a locale a little too far for a Sheriff from Texas to travel to serve yelster’s team, unable to collect a winning judgement from. The site states “123people is a service provided by yelster digital gmbh. The Austrian company has been part of the French Paiges Jaunes Group since March 2010.” Yelster digital gmbh, based in Vienna Austria, under the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court Vienna FN298562m, is a member of the Austrian Economic Chamber, Economic Chamber of Vienna, under the trade Authority of the District Office of the 6th District Simply read, our personal and proprietary ID has been conscripted by a foreign national untouchable off shore.

123people.com site states it is a “free real time people search tool that looks into nearly every corner of the web” using their “proprietary search algorithm” to find “comprehensive and centralized person related information consisting of public records, phone numbers, addresses, images, videos and email addresses.” “Search Facebook and other social networking sites like mySpace, Linkedin, Xing, Wikipedia profiles and much more. All of this rich media profile content is pulled from an extensive list of international as well as regional relevant sources, all to enable you to find people in real time. Find friends and business contacts now.” 123people.com registered their trademark in the US Patent and Trademark Office. 123people.com should be attachable in Virginia. Serve them at the USPTO, in the least, since the USPTO “sanctioned” their business model with a patent.

It is worrisome that 123people’s TOS, Terms of Service, says “Yelster reserves the right to make modifications to these Terms and Conditions at any time and without notice to users.” There is a problem. Most people who personal data is being marketed by yelster are not users of the site, rather they are being used. Period. yelster’s “Service” states “may include advertisements or links to third party websites.” Yelster is trafficking people, plain and simple, of the 2D kind, albeit, but all those people being sold are flesh and blood. Yelster is a foreign company, crossing international borders, telling people what it is and is “not a ‘consumer reporting agency’” and what it does, and doesn’t do, not providing a “consumer report” giving its site an air of legitimacy by mentioning the FCRA, Fair Credit Reporting Act, and FACT, Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions, advising people “under federal law, you have the right to receive a free copy of your credit report once every 12 months from each of the three nationwide consumer reporting companies: Equiax, Experian and Transunion. To request your credit report, visit www.aunnualcreditreport.com” and directs people to read more about the FCRA on the Federal Trade Commission websites: www.ftc.gov” www.123people.com/page/tos

Yelster, an online search service for businesses plus, launched 123pages in France, January 2012. Sui Generis includes databases in France. Remember way back near the beginning? Sui Generis, "unique in its characteristics,” Intellectual Property? Copyright? Moral rights. Congress can facilitate Americans ability to pursue Identity Theft By Internet, in the case of yelster, with France, and to extend Human Trafficking to include online Identity theft and bundling, for sale or otherwise. No more of this ‘throw it up on the Internet, then take it down when found out.’ Poppycock. Provide injured persons the right to take, this too, to IPO Small Claims Court. Block the filing of future patents/trademarks/copyrights by serial offenders. Easy enough to gather that data. Remember Google? The big bad Voodoo Daddy who holds everyone’s private data? Grin….. fork it over when algorithms show serial stealers. Privacy? Sure its an issue, Door One or Door Two, the Lady or the Tiger….

The 1984, Tennessee Protection of Personal Rights Statute, gives a person and their heirs the rights to the famous person’s name, photograph and likeness, allowing the family to protect the celebrity’s images and to profit from the celebrity’s image, too. The Internet is a petrie dish for Instant Celebrity and Everyday People. What makes a celebrity different than Jane and John Doe whose image is conscripted by sites like 123people.com and spokeo.com. The question on the table, might be, does youtube celebrity and a million hits qualify for protection under the Celebrities Rights Act, California Civil Code Section 3344, for the publicity rights of living persons, and Civil Code section 3344.1, or not. An every day person on Facebook or 123people.com may just find themselves starring in a movie they did not tryout for. LINKEDIN is circulating, in 2013, “Friend Requests” for Andrew Breitbart. Breitbart died tragically in 2012. If LINKEDIN is using Breitbart to solicit fake “I know him” responses or as part of an algorithm, then isn’t LINKEDIN liable to Breitbart’s estate in that Breitbart was "any natural person whose name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness has commercial value at the time of his or her death". Dead celebrities may be used to open up consumer and commercial wallets but what about 12 year old Susie, her photo lifted from an online page, then manipulated to look as if she is appearing in a porn flick or as a baby in an online trading commercial spoof. Then what? IPO Small Claims Court? Or what? Commercial value used to have a different meaning before the Internet. Now, with cookies and online tracking of person’s habits that is being done, everything on the Internet has value to someone. Which IPO Small Claims court zip code would a viral video online sensation queen go for legal redress if her 15 minutes of fame was uploaded in the backseat of Dad’s car traveling between 90210 and 20002?

Conversely, what about celebrity look-a-likes profiting because of a twist-of-face, looking like someone notorious. Luis Ortiz is the dopplanger for President Barack Obama excepting Ortiz’s mole is on the other side of the nose. Imitation isn’t always the best form of flattery. Where would Mr Ortiz sue Mr. Obama for altering his life, just kidding, but not. How is this that much different than 123people.com giving the impression, yelster is a decision a person made to participate in rather than having to invest time to “remove!”

The law does bifurcate defining Celebrity when it comes to uber stars like Kim K and everyday people seeking to stop Internet sales of their image, identity, and IP bundled by entities like 123people.com. Laws are on the books that when a celebrity is dead, their image is protected, yet search engines like BING are getting away with IT. Is the question when does it become Identity Theft or is the acknowledgement, this is Identity Theft, akin to IP and Commerce theft. Is this an IPO Small Court Claims matter or something cops get called in on. Identity theft statutes vary by state yet 123people.com impacts people in every state. The types of information protected from misuse by identity theft statutes includes Name, Date of birth, Passwords, Parent's legal surname prior to marriage, among others. http://definitions.uslegal.com/i/identity-theft/ Details like passwords, parents legal surname prior to marriage are bundled on to these sites. Unauthorized Use of Warhol, Haring and Kinkade, online beggaring the question, does Congress ever look back at what it did before it worries about how to move forward?

Congress facilitated Search Engines without all “i’s” dotted and “t’s” crossed when it came to Unauthorized Use of IP and ID, online. What is missing iscatching Congress up to speed, defining Small Claims in an online IP interconnected world.

The methodology of a homeless man moving his two huge rollie bags at Farragut Park the other day inspired wondering how this man, logical and analytical with a goal in mind, was outside of Congress while Legislators are in. The man had his “stuff.” The homeless man was set on moving his “stuff” forward, making sure it would not get stolen. A 3rd bag on his back, the man rolled one bag half way, leaving his second bag behind. He went back to Bag 1 then rolled it up beside Bag 2. Then he moved Bag 2 up the block some more, over and over to he got where he was going. Why cant Congress learn from this man’s example. IP Bag 1, Unauthorized Use of ID is already on the books, addressed under California and other Civil Codes, addressing Dead Celebrities. Move IP ID Bag 2, everyday persons ID being used online without authorization and move IP ID Bag 2 to where IP ID Bag 1 is. Celebrity isn’t an exclusive Club anymore. What is the real difference between a Dead Celebrity and a youtube sensation waiting to happen or a Facebook Avatar used to build content on a Search Engine? The difference is a corporate business loss leader a corporate entity with a fat bottom line can afford to make that a lowly starving Intellectual Property owner moonlighting at the neighborhood Java Joint.. Good Pr with the fan base community. Let the fans loose. The dollars will come. In the meantime, the artist is scraping together nickels from tips.

Technology is complicating ID matters in that the dead are being brought back to life by technicians skilled in digital imagery of making dead actors interact with live actors, hold and pitch product. Coke had Elton John canoodle with Jimmy Cagney. Groucho Marx had a great time with Paula Abdul. Elvis boogied for Pizza Hut- all licensed by heirs or licensors of the celebrities post-life image. Natalie Cole dueted with her dead dad Nat. Point being shared here is the technology of image synthesis, image created from data input into the computer, and photogrammetry, computer image matching to a model, is that fantastic that soon enough it will be near impossible to tell the living apart from the dead. Dead celebrities can work the rest of their life. And then some. Fred Astaire’s widow licensed the hoofer out to Dirt Devil. She was paid. Astaire’s widow explained her late husband liked to dance with unusual items in unusual ways. Once can only wonder, now that Hoover bought the FBI building, will there be a Dancing With the Stars on the walls of downtown DC. In a IP manipulating world, what is to prevent video of Jimmy Smits dipping SCOTUS Sotomayor on a dance floor into a video of the Justice being dipped by the pedophile next door. Or the infamous magazine cover of the 4 year old standing on a chair nursing at his mom’s teat to be manipulated into the viral internet forward of Michael Bloomberg nursing from Barack Obama. Oh wait, that was done. So, who does the IP owner sue and where does the IP owner file suit, if the image was scrubbed before going viral in social networks. Computer industry technots say the line in the sand is when an image cannot be tracked back to the original image. In the case of Fairey v AP, Sheperd Fairey outed himself in an interview. Busted.

Down the road prediction of Identity, ID, being used without authorization, is a real concern for ‘Face-Lifts,’ not of the traditional kind of nips and tucks, but the lifting of a person’s image from the Internet and making a stranger look just like them. Celebrities are used to having their features and fashions coveted by fans who go to all lengths to be ‘like them.’ The security fear is ID THEFT where a persons photos removed from their page, by sites like yelster or Search Engines, without authorization, where it is then made available to more people who use the IP without permission which can, with the invasiveness of Technology into where people are through GPS in their phones, can result in the person being stalked or access to secure sites like the White House or into a car waiting for a Congressman. While this isn’t the concern for Jane and John Doe, being impersonated, it is a concern for lawmakers. Remember Luis Ortiz? He does well as Obama until people get close to Luis or Luis speaks…..

123people.com and spokeo are selling people. Selling a person is trafficking. Should the definition of human trafficking be expanded to include using and/or selling a person’s life/data without permission. How does one pursue Trafficking in an IPO Small Claims court? Possibly by putting the Onus on the search engines, the Behemoths behind all this clatter that are Ground Zero for IP and ID and commerce that must be contained if laws on the books are to be administered as design and as orchestrated under the Ten Commandments. DON’T. NO. HANDS OFF, coupled with requiring Search Engines to develop an Alert System warning people when their site has been compromised and by whom, giving the person real time within which to adress their IP, ID and Commerce thefts. A model of sorts already exists in Whenu, a company that produces“contextualized” marketing software. Whenu’s software monitors an Internet user's browsing habits, and display customized advertising content in “pop up” windows. Whenu was sued by Wells Fargo, a large bank based in San Francisco, a constituent of former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Wells Fargo & Co. v. WhenU.com,Inc. (293 F.Supp.2d 734). Wells Fargo claimed Whenu’s pop-ups “framed” Wells Fargo’s own Web site. Whenu’s pop-ups often advertised for competing banks.

Remember “Faceoff.” John Travolta, Nick Cage. The synopsis goes “An FBI covert terrorism expert assumes the identity of his arch-nemesis, a sadistic terrorist. Things get complicated when the terrorist awakens from surgery, faceless, and forces the doctors to attach the FBI agent's face. Both characters then carry out one another's lives in a game of cat-and-mouse--the FBI agent pretends to be the terrorist while trying to locate and dismantle a nuclear weapon, while the terrorist assumes the role of FBI agent and family man.” http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/faceoff/

The year? 1997. The future is here.

Five days ago, news reported “How 3D Printing Gave This Man His Life (and Face) Back.” Eric Moger received a detailed prosthetic 3D-printed face. Almost half of Eric’s face left side was taken off about four years ago along with a tumor the size of a tennis ball, leaving Eric with a gaping holes. CT and facial scans facilitated Eric’s doctors, overseen by implant specialist Dr. Andrew Dawood, to create a digital blueprint of his 3D printed jaw then printing off a face prosthetic using nylon plastic, screws and all, holding his head together, so to speak. http://gizmodo.com/5993147/how-3d-printing-gave-this-man-his-life-and-face-back

In an Internet world, the process of addressing Unauthorized Use of Copyrights and IPO Small Claims Court must start with the Internet, itself. Guiding rules should be written simpler in everyday English, in shorter sentences so the “nuances of copyright law” can be understood by people wanting to evaluate stepping in to the process, before even hiring a lawyer. Any and all, online entities must declare a land/brick adress, must provide an active phone number with calls returned within 24-48 hours (as per the DC government model). The online entity must be in compliance with local law which includes declaring themselves a business entity, facilitating the potential IPO Small Claims Court to “focus more on a paper practice with fewer (if any) hearings.”

The potential Tsunami of Unauthorized Use of Copyrights and Copyright litigation, in Small Claims Courts or otherwise, are building. The increasing connectivity of the Internet and Broadband and the potential for Interstate claims in an increasingly mobile culture has IP watchdogs on the lookout for secondary infringement of copyright. Secondary infringement happens when one party facilitates other parties infringing copyrights. Secondary infringement is also called Indirect Infringement. A proposal that brings existing Terra Firma law on to the Internet is the accessing of a website without permission, Trespassing. eBay, Inc. v. Bidder's Edge, Inc. (100 F.Supp.2d 1058). A databot that trespasses on to an IP, Intellectual Property owner’s site removing IP, is trespassing, an issue could become part of a matter argued in the IPO court, described in use in the UK.It is futile to go after and/or sue tens, hundreds, or millions of direct infringers. The Copyright Owner could sue the “gatekeeper” responsible for facilitating en masse violating of copyrights. “Portal Pimps” or “Gatekeepers” include a long list starting from Search Engines down to Pinterest Princesses looking to pump up their online Viewer-bility.

Discovery is simple, not- proof of identification, proof of ownership ie publication, etc. by someone with expertise in recognizing photoshopped images- ie. a photographer would know to ask for the card, the images, stuff like like. And herein is an argument to keep the United States Postal Service alive. Once upon a time, people, to cheaply protect their Intellectual Property, would Xerox their idea, put it into an envelope, mail it to themselves and, upon receiving it, leave the envelope sealed unless needed for litigation, proof of date of creation. The slow devolution of the USPS is another stake in the heart of an IP owner mitigating their cost of IP protection. As stated by Stavros Lambrinidis, in his video statement broadcast to TECH@STATE, the Internet is being read by others. Emailing an IP to oneself is an Online License To Be Stolen From. A question without an answer- if an IP owner emails something to themselves are they then guilty of IP theft? Just kidding. Not.

The last office, to be given oversight of this process should be the Copyright Office, in that in over 7 years, the Copyright Office has failed to expeditiously bring about change to protect Copyright Owners, at the same time, appears to be taking steps, with notions presented for Orphan Works, to exploit Copyright owners. The Copyright Royalty Board is limited to industries it provides oversight. The Register of Copyrights stepping into 2D, emerging 3D and other industries would only be more of a cash grab in what is already nicknamed the “only profitable government office,” the USPTO, after all, isn’t it about the Dream, the lottery win.

FAIR USE is the fly in the ointment in this conversation in that FAIR USE has become the artful place to dodge to. FAIR USE is simple- a bit of it not all of it- a slice of the pie not all of it. The change needed here is a definition of 1/16th of the Coconut Crème Key Lime pie or 1/4r or 1/8th or 1/2? No, not 1/2th or 3/4rs or more. Either “pay the lady” as the racing commercial went or move on. Use the image then do so knowing suit is possible. The doctrine holds that an author can use copyrighted material to report on newsworthy events with the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. When an image is used online, unless the image is locked down and barred from being printed or removed to a desktop, the reality is a good chance that image will be removed then used elsewhere without license. An example of FAIR USE in the Internet stage is removal of public information from one site to access pertinent information brokered on another site Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.com, Inc. (2000 wl 1887522). Taking the info from Ticketmasters site is Fair Use, had Tickets.com taken Ticketmaster’s logo, that would not be Fair Use. The Argument of FAIR USE has clogged to many courts and people’s time already by No Gooders wanting to push envelopes and agendas as far as they can get away with the Unauthorized Use, hoping the Copyright owner will give up and go away.

The Copyright Royalty Board does not speak for the world of 2D Licensing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Royalty_Board The Copyright Royalty Board addresses web casting not licensing Garfield for Nurses Scrubs or Mylar balloons, greeting cards, plush and infant pacifiers. Prior definitions of business are skewed by the Internet- largely anonymous. ISP’s are not exactly zip codes. The “hunk next door” might be sitting in prison. The babe with the hots might be 400 pound hairy Vladimir in the Ukraine. How does one sue a person or entity without a known adress or contact? If Vladimir is tracked down how does one sue persons like him or an entity located in a foreign country? How does one determine cost of loss if one must hire a lawyer first to engage the Search Engines to release the information? Should a Search Engine now become part of the process if the Copyright Owner was successful in an infringed image take down? Where does one sue Search Engines, the facilitators of IP Theft? What about the .ru thief utilizing Christian Laboutin’s trademark to gather LIKE’s on FAcebook then conscripting an Administrator’s role on a Facebook subscriber’s site which is then linked to a restaurant in Punta Corda Florida, taking online credit card payments the dowager running the restaurant didn’t understand, being from a sleepy retirement community. The logo, the menu, the list goes on of the IP stolen. Where does one sue and who?

While the conversation defers to State courts NOT having “expertise in copyright jurisprudence”, neither do the Search Engines have “expertise in copyright jurisprudence” to respond to Infringement Claims. Search Engines are acting as Judge and Jury in Take-Down petitions for alleged Copyright Violations basing take down decisions on data the Complainants provides to the Search Engine. Technically, with Search Engines being the “decider” to take alleged Unauthorized Use of Copyrighted material off the Internet, then the conversation of an IPO Small Claims Court is moot, in that the Search Engine is acting in that capacity, all except for issuing awards.

If a Google can send a take-down complaint to Chilling Effects www.chillingeffects.org then Google can send an ALERT of the IP, ID and Commerce to the Copyright owner. Chilling Effects is a “collaborative archive created by Wendy Seltzer and founded along with several law school clinics and the Electronic Frontier Foundation to protect lawful online activity from legal threats. Its website, Chilling Effects Clearinghouse, allows recipients of cease-and-desist notices to submit them to the site and receive information about their legal rights and responsibilities.” Google is aware of their “legal rights and responsibilities.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_Effects_%28group%29

All that is left to determine is the penalty and where and how to collect it. There are many suggestions. I shudder making them as the suggestions would take America down the route of Greece dipping into people’s accounts. The honor system does not work. If the Honor System did work, the matter would not be addressed at all. In the world of the Internet, impounding Infringing Copies does not apply to 2D IP and ID creators. Parents send their children to bed without dinner in a pre-Lets Move world. How does one send an Anonymous thief to his bedroom to think what he did over, in a Virtual world? The tickler is brainstorming on that version of a notion. What would people do without, to make them want to not steal someone else’s IP? Taking away the Infringer’s computer is an idea but in a world of diminishing PDA’s that not a very good remedy. Restraining Orders? That would be a good remedy against sites like 123people.com and spokeo.com and others like them. THE MINUTE a site like that is spotted on the Internet if 10 people answer NO when asked if they provided their image/ID/IP to the site, then site is in immediate backup for documentation of evidence, frozen by the Search

Engine, all data erased in that the Search Engine would be complicit in ID/IP theft (knowingly) and the state/foreign government would be fined. Also investigated would be the possibility of enacting mail and wire fraud, any fraudulent scheme to intentionally deprive another of property or honest services via mail or wire communication a federal crime in the US since 1872, with an eye on the RICO Act due to the nature of participants seeking ID gleaned from these sites.

That said, WAMU reported, April 9, 2013, Maryland’s governance went home, after signing laws. One law stuck out as a sad reality the world is less of a place to get “away” with anything, moreso now when it comes to traveling Maryland EZ Pass lanes without authorization. Bottom line, cameras snap the tag or car idea. The person will be stalked across the country and fined. Ecruing fines would impact renewing car licenses etc. Not at all a fan of big brother, but all the Internet platforms are sharing data, anyway, why not have an IPO Small Claims Court decision, public information, shared with the Search Engines who could facilitate an IPO owners quest for take down then provide documentation the IPO owner could carry into an IPO Small Claims Court with them. The award? OMG, Bitcoins? Not serious. Serious. Rome wasn’t built in a day, remember.

The NEW SYSTEM begins with sticking to the Berne Convention premise that “IT ISNT YOURS.” When someone takes what isn’t theirs, its called Theft- petty theft, larceny, Grand Theft. Stealing is stealing. The only difference between stealing a chocolate bar or an idea be anything other than calories- THEFT IS THEFT.

Put the onus on Search engines to report Take Downs. Pick a number. Three take downs, thirty? Point being, at some number the take down is a permanent shut down. If a lawyer wants to protest a violator’s shut down, knock themselves out to put up a bond. If the lawyer doesn’t want to put up a bond, the client can. There is a cost of doing business. Lawyers needing to work will learn that sometimes a McMansion can be earned by working in greater numbers in mass markets. Build the connection between People in the Arts, Law and Business before they are in their final year. Start the symbiotic relationship in Art and Law school freshman years.

There is no understanding why all copyright claims must fall inside the exclusive jurisdiction over copyright claims. 28 U.S.C. 1338. The Registrar wrote “jurisdiction in federal courts is generally beneficial because copyright law is federal law, and federal courts have become familiar with copyright analysis and thus should bring a level of consistency to copyright cases. What should be done is removal of the requirement to timely registered.” 17 U.S.C. 412, 504, 505, Recovery of statutory damages and attorney's fees should be part of the process.

The modern day difficulty, in these days of the Internet, to collect a judgment from an online defendant is the old world problem of collecting judgments from shell companies. The IPO Small Claim Court plaintiff will have to do diligence on learning who the parties to name are. “…not all of these copyright owners, however, have the same resources to bring a federal lawsuit, which can require substantial time, money, and effort.” Clarifying if the suit is a Brick Matter from Click Matter or issuing a ‘With Prejudice’ judgment that covers both is a consideration. Piracy on the Terra Firma is no where near the numbers of piracy on the Internet. Piracy on the Terra Firma does not preclude Internet Theft nor, conversely, does Internet theft preclude Terra Firma theft. ‘With Prejudice’ tends to keep potential re-violators toeing the legal line by providing the IP creator the opportunity to return to court, when the Unauthorized Use violations continue. The IPO Small Claims Court should assure the matter cannot be moved by a defendant in to a higher court nor can a defendant counter sue without presenting, at the Mediation process documentation, a counter suit is valid.

All on board that an IP creator with history of licensing/royalties can participate in an IPO Small Claims Court. An IP creator WITHOUT historic sales/royalties is social climbing, so to speak, unless proof is submitted defendants profits/sales can be documented. IP Small Claims Court could create a pod of online investigators to facilitate pre-determination of case potential. Companies sometimes do answer honestly in phone queries as to how well an item performs at Point of Purchase. Point being, IPO Small Claims Court is one of several logical related services to bring under one roof to seek redress for a Violate IPO owner.

All this said, like horse races, there is no predicting winning or losing, in the paperless world of the Internet where ‘contracts’ change at will of the site, without notice, it will become increasingly more difficult to prove data wasn’t manipulated.

There is never reinventing the wheel. Never say never. One man took an alternative route to Resolution, the internet, not recommended but effective if he felt better and able to move forward. He posted his claim to his pirated copyright, quite colorfully, to say the least. http://www.toytowngermany.com/lofi/index.php/t27603.html Crusoe asked the question best along with encouragement “ What the hell is the point in patenting it in the first place then, if any bollocks can come along and re-patent it and clean up?? Go get’im boy, and the best of luck!”

A “new small copyright claim system” as delineated by the Registrar of Copyrights exists. It is a UK system, under the stewardship of controversial Lord Justice Leveson. Leveson misguidedly declared Newspapers pursuant to the Milly Dowling murder in his Opinion are Alive and Well

The joke may be that when America sneezes, England gets the flu, but Europe is where America got is bikeshare concept from, its meterless parking from and so much more. When it comes to England it is the tail that wags the dog, America. It beggars the mind that the RSC, Republican Study Committee and the Register of Copyright did not notice that across the pond the United Kingdom’s news. The UK had initiated Small Claims Track for business intended to “speed up the court process and make it cheaper and easier, particularly for small and medium sized businesses, to protect their intellectual property (IP) rights.” There is more to England than Prince Harry’s imminent visit to Jersey or Harry’s infamous visit to Vegas proving that what goes on in Vegas, comes off in Vegas and surely doesn’t stay in Vegas. (www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-harry/9952390/Prince-Harry-to-make-official-visit-to-US-in-May-but-will-steer-clear-of-Las-Vegas.html)

Business Minister Michael Fallon welcomed Patents County Court (PCC) announcement that the Small Claims track provides “copyright, trade mark and unregistered design holders the option of pursuing basic IP disputes through an informal hearing, without legal representation. This is expected to reduce significantly the cost of pursuing IP infringement cases. Claims allocated to the small claims track will be subject to damages restrictions of £5,000 or less to ensure they are proportionate to what is at stake. Fallon said "Small firms, whose intellectual property has been infringed, will have today a simpler and easier way to take their cases forward, by writing direct to the judge and setting out the issues. Lower legal costs will make it easier for entrepreneurs to protect their creative ideas where they had previously struggled to access justice in what could often be an expensive progress. A smarter and cheaper process is good for business and helping businesses make the most of their intellectual property is good for the economy." An IPO office, Intellectual Property Office, overseen by the BIS, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, alternatives to court action for “resolving IP disputes, including hearings before an IPO tribunal, or using the IPO's mediation services. It recommends that legal action is only taken as a last resort.”

The UK “IPO operates in a national and an international environment and its work is governed by national and international law, including various international treaties relating to IP to which the United Kingdom is a party” which beggars the mind why this has not been part of the conversation moreso in light of “yelster” ID theft protected under French law. 'Plan for Growth ', published at Budget 2011:.Date of release: 1 October 2012 (www.commarts.com/Columns.aspx?pub=3427&pageid=1227)

Let’s be clear here, if artists were business people (most of them), the expression “starving artists” would not even exist. Not everyone is a Michael Kors www.michaelkors.com or a Gloria Vanderbilt (Anderson Cooper’s mom) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_Vanderbilt or even a Kim Kardashian whose talent was a video that has parlayed itself into a clothing line for JCP, the new JC Penny’s or going to be one in a growing franchise of Reality Housewives with a talent for preening who then get marketing opportunities tossed at them. One never can say they’ve seen it all. In a world of Intellectual Property, whoever would have imagined that Jane Goodall would be accused of plagiarism http://now.msn.com/jane-goodall-apologizes-for-plagiarism Say it ain’t so, Jane.

Getting to the IPO Small Claims court is work. Getting there is also loss of time at work. The average artist makes it hand to mouth, pursuing their art and craft. Not everyone is the artist who designed the NIKE swoosh for $35 who received stock when NIKE went public, according to wikipedia. Docents at the Library of Congress, tell on tour, Carolyn Davidson, was inspired by an element in the Library of Congress, the wing in the famous mosaic of the Greek Goddess of victory, Nike, inspiration for many courageous warriors. Story is told that Greeks would say, "When we go to battle and win, we say it is Nike."

Litigation is the last resort.

First, the Unauthorized Use has to be discovered.

Then comes letter writing in an effort to mitigate matters

Then comes Mediation

Then comes Court with a whole lot of “What If’s” in between

What all the violations are not found?

What if a contact person, entity or agent cannot be found?

What if the contact person, entity or agent is outside the country? Can the local embassy accept service?

To win, IP owners have to do a weekly/monthly search on multiple Search Engines through thousands of links; Daily Google Alert; Stalk themselves online; keep revisiting sites that took images down or did not; search WHO IS to locate site’s contacts; Send a DMCA take-down notice. Trust peers, sharing the names of Infringing sites since if they steal from one are stealing from others. Understand that every minute of a creative person’s time invested into pursuing IP theft, is a moment they are not putting into their creativity. It is, commerce lost.

The time is far past Federal Courts and Tribunals. Digital works is putting Intellectual Property creators works at the greatest risk ever. Digital works are used as is, shared, processed, changed and manipulated. Court should be the FINAL step. An IPO Small Claims Court is viable. The merit of an IPO Small Claims Court is that it gives someone small the ability to do something brave. For God’s sake, erase the stigma of Litigious for pursuing thefts of an IP owners, IP and ID.

In New York, the expression was “turn the lights on and watch the roaches run.” Lights on. Get this Congressional clog flushed and running. Let’s get this done.

EVERYTHING ON THIS SITE IS (C) CARRIE DEVORAH UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED even then its presentation & design is (c) Carrie DevorahNOTHING MAY BE REPRODUCED . COPIED . WEBCRAWLER STOLEN . USED FOR ADVERTISING DOLLARS and so much more WITHOUT WRITTEN LICENSE FROM CARRIE DEVORAH.